Get a MaxPreps stat leaderboard

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: rows are returned undecoded with a warning if MaxPreps changes their shape, and it explicitly states the tool is read-only. This helps the agent anticipate external schema drift without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the definition and output contents, then give sourcing guidance and a failure-mode warning. Every sentence earns its place; the only slight redundancy is the final 'Read-only', which is brief and harmless.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how to obtain the required path, the limit behavior, and the fallback behavior if the upstream format changes. No critical calling information is missing.

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 documents both parameters well, including the path format/example and the limit bounds/default, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description mostly restates the sourcing guidance for `path` and the 200-athlete cap, adding no meaningfully new parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource: ranked athletes for one statistical category, scoped to a state or nationally, and specifies output contents (stat line, school, teamPath). It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar sibling tools like maxpreps_get_stat_leaders or maxpreps_get_rankings, so it misses the strongest 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?

The description gives actionable guidance — take `path` from maxpreps_list_stat_categories rather than constructing it — and implies the tool is used after listing categories. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving selection partly to inference.

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