Get one team’s rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by explaining the output includes surrounding teams and typical ranking categories, which is useful for an agent predicting the tool's behavior. It does not fully disclose every detail but adds meaningful context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a read-only note. No redundancy or filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys what the return data represents (rankings and surrounding teams) and typical ranking categories. Combined with annotations and schema, the agent has sufficient context to invoke and interpret results.

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% with descriptive comments for both parameters (team, season). The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond clarifying that 'team' refers to a single team, which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states that the tool returns a single team's rankings across multiple categories (national, state, division, metro) plus adjacent teams. It distinguishes itself from the sibling maxpreps_get_rankings by explicitly saying it's for 'how good is this team' rather than browsing a leaderboard.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this for "how good is this team"; use maxpreps_get_rankings to browse a whole leaderboard.' This names the alternative tool and provides clear decision criteria, satisfying the when-and-when-not requirement.

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