Get a MaxPreps team schedule and scores

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the score orientation (teamScore/opponentScore vs. winner-first resultString), the default hiding of soft-deleted contests, and the inclusion of playoff/championship tournaments. It also notes the legitimate no-results case for a current season. These are valuable behavioral details that annotations alone do not convey.

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 a compact paragraph where every sentence adds value: core purpose, score semantics, soft-delete behavior, season-timing caveat, and tournament inclusion. The final 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation but harmless. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary use case.

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 clearly explains what the tool returns (games, scores, tournaments) and reveals important edge cases (soft-deleted contests, season timing). This gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific semantics, though its clarification of score orientation indirectly helps interpret the 'played' filter (e.g., what counts as a result). Overall, the schema carries the load.

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 opens with 'Every game for a team season, with the result and both scores,' which clearly identifies the tool as returning a schedule with scores. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on schedule-specific details like score orientation and tournament entries, making it unmistakable among the other MaxPreps tools.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (to get a team's schedule and scores) and includes a practical caveat about checking a prior season if the current one has no results pre-opening day. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to infer the appropriate use case.

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