Get a MaxPreps team season

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'roughly 20 years' of season history and the read-only reassurance, but largely repeats annotation info. It does not add details on errors, data freshness, or other behavioral caveats, matching the baseline for annotation-backed tools.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first lists the data content, the second gives a clear use case. No filler or 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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates returned data categories (record, standings, rankings, season list) which is adequate for a read-only overview. It does not explain response formatting or error handling, but for a simple 3-parameter tool with rich annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning season in the overview; the schema already explains team path, season pattern, and includeSeasons.

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 identifies a specific resource (team season) and enumerates exact contents: identifiers, win-loss record, points for/against, conference standing, rankings, and season list. It also distinguishes from schedule by noting it confirms a record without summing a schedule.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use it to confirm a record without summing a schedule.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for standings/rankings, but the purpose and context are clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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