Get a MaxPreps team roster

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

Annotations cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: soft-deleted entries are excluded by default, the payload may contain substantially more rows than the page displays, and height/weight are null when not published. This gives the agent useful expectations about data completeness and edge cases.

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 concise and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose before adding necessary caveats. Each sentence provides distinct value: scope, soft-deletion behavior, null-handling, and read-only status, with no redundant filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the returned fields, null behavior, and the soft-deleted row discrepancy, which is enough for a caller to interpret results. It does not specify the response shape (e.g., array vs object), but for a roster listing that is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents team, season, position, and includeDeleted with examples and defaults. The description's mention of soft-deleted exclusion aligns with includeDeleted's default but adds no new paramter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as retrieving players on a team for one season and enumerates the returned fields (jersey, name, class year, positions, height, weight). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_team or get_athlete, but the roster scope is evident and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as maxpreps_get_team or maxpreps_get_athlete. The read-only note is a property, not usage direction. Implicitly, it is the roster-specific tool, but that is not stated.

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