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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a current-state read and explains what league positions mean, but it does not state side-effect behavior, permissions, refresh cadence, or output structure.

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 short and front-loaded, with the resource named first and the parameter and table consequences following. A small amount of space is spent restating schema details like the default value, but overall it is efficient.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough domain context to understand what the table represents. It still omits return-format details such as columns, ordering, and tie-breakers, so it is not fully complete.

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 0%, but there is only one simple enum parameter. The description repeats the allowed values and default while adding indirect meaning about PL and D1 through promotion and relegation context, though it does not fully explain the divisions or any other parameter nuance.

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 resource ('Current league table') and names the league values, so an agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_fixtures or get_my_form_report, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name and the parameter values; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The default and allowed league values are useful context but do not constitute tool-selection guidance.

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