Get MaxPreps team stat leaders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, so the 'Read-only' line is redundant. But the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses return payload components (qualifying minimums, refresh time) and explains coverage variability and empty-result semantics.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value, followed by the important edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 does an excellent job of explaining what is returned (athlete entries, minimums, refresh time) and how to interpret empty results. The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required), and the description fully covers its use and behavior.

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%: both team and season have descriptive examples in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 identifies the action ('get') and resource ('team stat leaders'), then elaborates with the exact contents of each entry: athlete, stat, value, and athlete career URL. The phrase 'for a team season' distinguishes it from the sibling stat leaderboard tool.

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 implies a clear use case (retrieving team-season stat leaders) and provides helpful context that empty results are normal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like maxpreps_get_stat_leaderboard or state when to prefer this tool over them, so while context is clear, exclusions are absent.

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