Get MaxPreps team rankings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses pagination (25 at a time), season default behavior (empty before sport underway), and the entry fields including `teamPath`. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, with no contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each sentence adds substantive detail (scope, entry contents, pagination, season behavior, read-only). No repetitive or wasted language.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably explains what responses contain (rank, rating, record, movement, teamPath) and key behaviors like pagination and season default. It could mention empty-result handling, but overall it's complete enough for a simple read-only list.

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 clear per-parameter descriptions. The description repeats some schema info (season default, 25 per page) and adds output-focused context about `teamPath`, but no novel parameter syntax or semantics. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 it returns a ranked leaderboard of teams for a sport, nationally or within a state, and positions it as the discovery mechanism. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling `maxpreps_get_team_rankings`, which appears to be a near-duplicate name, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 offers some guidance ('this is the way to discover teams rather than look one up'), implying use for discovery versus lookup. But it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like `maxpreps_get_team_rankings` or `maxpreps_list_teams`, nor any exclusions.

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