Get one team's full schedule

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: ordering (oldest first), the distinction between `startLocal` (school local time in `timeZone`) and `start` (true UTC), and the instruction to quote `startLocal` as-is. This goes beyond what annotations provide. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or response size, but not essential for a schedule tool.

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, no fluff. The key scope statement ('A single team's complete season, oldest first') is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite resolution step and the critical timezone caveat. Every sentence adds needed information.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with a required parameter pair and an optional year, the description covers what an agent needs: how to obtain the ids, the meaning of the return fields, the ordering, and the timezone caveat. It doesn't have an output schema, but the description sufficiently explains the return values' semantics. Sibling tools are distinguishable from the description, and no further context is needed.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description still adds value by explaining the relationship between sportSlug, teamId, and year resolution, and by clarifying timezone semantics for `startLocal` vs `start`, which are return values not parameters. It reinforces the schema's guidance for `year` and `teamId` with practical usage context (ids differ per school year).

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 it returns 'A single team's complete season, oldest first', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from mpaz_get_schedule (which presumably covers broader/all schedules). Mentioning 'Requires BOTH the sport slug and the team id' states the resource scope. It is unambiguously about one team's full schedule.

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 says to resolve sportSlug and teamId with mpaz_list_teams or mpaz_resolve_team first, and the year parameter's description advises resolving that year's team id with mpaz_list_teams and reading its `coverage` note. This is strong when-to-use guidance, including dependencies and how to avoid using the tool with stale ids.

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