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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further: no indication of how the table is ordered, which fields it contains, whether it reflects live or final results, or how the lang parameter affects output. It is purely a restatement of the resource.

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?

Six words, front-loaded, with no filler sentences — structurally clean. But the brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness, since the single sentence carries no operational 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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of describing what standings look like (position, points, played, goal difference, etc.) and it says nothing. For a lookup tool whose value depends entirely on the shape of the returned table, this is a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (lang, sport, league_id) are already documented in the schema, including the sport exclusion of tennis and the source lookup siblings. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'league table of a league' names the resource and uses domain vocabulary ('league table') that goes beyond simply restating the tool name, so an agent can tell it returns standings/rankings rather than fixtures or team data. However there is no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_league_facts or find_leagues, leaving the purpose only loosely pinned down.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The only routing hint comes from the input schema ('see list_sports', 'league id from find_leagues'), not from the description itself.

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