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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable transparency by explaining that standings are computed from roster rows and that points against may not always be available ('where available'). This helps the agent understand data derivation and potential limitations, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately followed by a brief explanatory note about the derivation method. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete. It explains the computation method, the data fields returned, and a limitation ('where available'). With no output schema, it successfully summarizes the return content. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it never mentions the required league_id parameter or its role. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without explicit guidance on what input to provide or expected formats.

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 clearly states the tool's function: computing league standings from roster settings, specifying the output (records, points for, points against). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that Sleeper has no standings endpoint, so these are derived from roster rows. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever league standings are needed, because Sleeper does not provide a direct endpoint. It implies the tool is the appropriate choice for this purpose, though it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or exclusions. The context is clear and no misleading guidance is present.

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