List a school’s teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the output content, the non-obvious gender-dependent path encoding, and the overload where a team path returns seasons. The field hockey and golf examples reveal quirks an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations. This is exactly the kind of context that prevents incorrect calls.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core result, then rationale, then the overload caveat. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place. 'Read-only' repeats an annotation but is harmless and brief.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (team path, sport, gender, level) and why this call is a prerequisite to other team tools. It accounts for the main hidden complexity, unguessable path segments, and the team-path input variant. Given the rich parameter schema and safety annotations, nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description raises this by extending the 'school' parameter to also accept a team path with different return semantics. It also contextualizes path segments with examples like 'golf/girls' versus 'golf/spring'. It does not add much to the 'level' or 'sport' filters, but the added parameter flexibility is important.

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 states an explicit verb and resource: 'Every team path a school publishes', and identifies the returning fields (sport, gender, level). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like maxpreps_get_team and maxpreps_get_schedule. An agent immediately knows this is a listing/prerequisite tool, not a detail-fetching 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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this before any team tool' and explains why: sport path segments are not guessable, with concrete examples. It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite directive gives strong guidance. The sentence about passing a team path also clarifies an alternate call pattern.

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