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

Annotations already convey safe read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the tiebreak ordering (wins → head-to-head → set diff → game diff; americano: total points), which is not present in annotations or schema.

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?

One dense sentence fully conveys the tool's output and ordering rules. No wasted words; highly front-loaded.

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?

The output schema already specifies return structure, and the description covers behavioral nuances (grouping, tiebreaks) that matter for interpretation. With a single well-documented parameter, this is 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 100% and the parameter description is clear ('tournament_key' starts with tk_). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides current standings per group/structure, with explicit tiebreak ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_results (match results) and get_schedule (fixtures).

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 gives clear context (standings data) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is obvious, but no exclusions or sibling tool references are provided.

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