Get one team’s rankings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, and the description's 'Read-only' aligns with them. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that the result includes surrounding ranked teams and typically covers national, state, division/class, and metro rankings.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the routing guidance and read-only note are compact.

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 explains what to expect: individual team rankings across relevant polls and nearby teams in each. It also covers typical ranking categories and gives usage routing. Minor gaps like response formatting or empty-ranking behavior are not critical for invoking this read-only query.

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 describes both parameters fully (team path/URL and season pattern/omission), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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 the tool returns a single team's position in each MaxPreps ranking plus neighboring teams. It names the specific resource and distinguishes itself from maxpreps_get_rankings, so an agent can immediately tell the two apart.

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?

Explicitly directs use for 'how good is this team' and identifies maxpreps_get_rankings as the alternative for browsing a whole leaderboard. This provides concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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