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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world tool. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: form is limited to the last six matches ordered oldest first, and cup competitions without tables return an empty result.

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 tight sentences with no wasted language. The main return content is front-loaded, followed immediately by the important edge case.

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 simple read tool, the description adequately covers what data is returned and one edge case. It is incomplete on parameter semantics because league_id is entirely undocumented, and there is no output schema to compensate for that gap.

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?

There is one required parameter, league_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. The description refers to leagues indirectly but never states what league_id is, where to obtain it, or what format it expects.

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 identifies the resource as the current league table and lists the returned content: points, goals, and form. It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_league, get_matches, and find_leagues, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implied by the resource name, and the description adds one useful scoping condition: cups without a table return nothing. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus get_league or find_leagues, nor does it describe prerequisites.

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