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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: Season 1 rows carry no rank, ordering is by settled calls rather than score, and sub-bar players are aggregated into `belowBarCount` instead of being named — a real disclosure about data suppression.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and the Season 1 caveat, with no filler. Minor deduction for the opaque "N behind them" phrasing, which costs clarity without adding meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the ordering/suppression behavior is well covered. However, the description leaves all three input parameters undocumented and provides no routing against sibling scoring tools, which is a noticeable gap for a tool in a crowded namespace.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it does not. The `id` parameter's required `season-\d+` shape, and the purpose/ranges of `limit` and `offset`, are never mentioned in the description text.

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 says it returns "scores with the N behind them for one season," which identifies a season-scoped standings read, but the phrase "the N behind them" is unexplained jargon that leaves the actual payload ambiguous. It also never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as problee_get_season_cohort, problee_list_scoring_cohort, or problee_list_leaderboard.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than the many alternative standings/scoring/leaderboard tools in the sibling list. The only conditional information given is about Season 1 behavior, which is a data caveat rather than usage guidance.

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