Search MaxPreps schools and athletes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description redundantly says 'Read-only' (no contradiction). However, it adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Search is exact-ish' and the quirk that appending qualifiers usually returns nothing. This gives the agent important expectations about search behavior that structured hints cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then a clear statement of the tool's role in the workflow, followed by a succinct search tip. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it finds, what it returns (canonical URLs), how the other tools depend on it, and a critical search caveat. This is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly as the entry point in a larger workflow.

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% (both query and limit have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for the query parameter by explaining the name-matching behavior and advising plain names for better results. This goes slightly beyond the schema's simple example, justifying a 4 rather than a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find a high school or an athlete by name.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by declaring it 'the entry point for every other tool' and explaining the canonical URLs it returns, making its role clear relative to the get_* and list_* siblings.

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 states when to use: 'This is the entry point for every other tool'—signaling to use it before any other tool to obtain canonical URLs. It also provides concrete search tips (prefer plain name, avoid qualifiers like 'high school'), which is actionable usage guidance. No need to exclude alternatives when the description frames it as the required first step.

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