Get a MaxPreps athlete career

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read-only' without contradiction. It adds valuable context that the careerCanonicalUrl carries the required careerid parameter and that without it the page cannot be addressed, disclosing an input prerequisite not fully captured by the schema.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then provides a crucial usage hint about sourcing the URL from search. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it returns (season history, sports played, available data), how to obtain the required input, and its read-only nature. It could mention error cases if careerid is missing, but that is already implied by the warning. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%: both athlete and careerId parameters have detailed descriptions including the requirement for careerid in the path. The tool description restates this but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 retrieves a single athlete's career page with season history, sports played, and available data. The verb 'get' and resource 'athlete career' are specific, and the focus on one athlete distinguishes it from sibling tools like maxpreps_get_school or maxpreps_get_team, even without naming them.

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?

The description instructs to pass the careerCanonicalUrl from maxpreps_search verbatim, establishing a clear dependency and workflow. It implies this is the follow-up to a search, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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