Search MaxPreps schools and athletes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: search is 'exact-ish,' appending qualifiers tends to fail, and the returned values are canonicalUrl and careerCanonicalUrl. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but with the annotation safety profile covered, this is strong.

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 compact, starts with the core purpose, then gives the most important returned fields, then the exact-search caveat, then the read-only reassurance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly covers the key return values (school canonicalUrl and athlete careerCanonicalUrl). It also explains the tool's role relative to the sibling getter tools. Minor omissions like result-category structure are not critical for a search entry point.

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 adds value beyond the schema by explaining the query semantics: use the plain school or athlete name, avoid suffix qualifiers, and note that results route to team and athlete tools via canonical URLs. This meaningfully clarifies how to use the query parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find a high school or an athlete by name.' It further distinguishes itself from the getter siblings by calling itself 'the entry point for every other tool' and specifying the canonical URLs it returns, which is exactly what downstream team and athlete tools need.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool ('entry point for every other tool') and provides concrete search guidance: prefer the plain school name because appending qualifiers like 'high' or 'high school' 'usually returns nothing.' This gives an agent actionable selection and invocation direction.

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