Get a MaxPreps athlete career

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the required careerid parameter and the consequence of omitting it (page cannot be addressed), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no filler. Every sentence contributes either descriptive content or essential usage instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with complete schema and safety annotations, the description adequately covers the page content and addressing requirements. It could be more explicit about return formatting, but 'available data' plus the listed items is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described including the link to search's careerCanonicalUrl. The description reinforces this relationship but does not introduce new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns one athlete's career page, listing specific content (season history, sports played, available data). The verb 'get' appears in the title and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like school, team, or roster pages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit instructions to pass the careerCanonicalUrl from maxpreps_search verbatim, establishing both a prerequisite and a clear workflow. It implies the tool is used after a search but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it just below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.