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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: data comes from the site cache and the response includes a source that should always be cited. This is meaningful supplementary information without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the parameter variants and the citation requirement. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description explains the parameter semantics and the response source instruction. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the exact shape of the returned standings could improve completeness, but it is not necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It thoroughly explains both enum values: 'zone' means the current tournament table restricted to River's zone, and 'season' means the cumulative annual table for all teams. This goes well beyond the bare enum names in the schema.

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 tool as returning standings ('Tabla de posiciones desde la caché del sitio') and explicitly differentiates the two modes: zone returns the current tournament table limited to River's zone, and season returns the annual accumulated table. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes the tool from its siblings.

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 explicit context for when to use each parameter value, including the nuance that Argentine tournaments are played in zones and positions restart at 1 in each zone. It also instructs the agent to always cite the source in the response. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the guidance is clear enough for correct use.

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