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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the result carries team_id, enabling chaining into get_lineup. It does not describe sorting or completeness of the table.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most useful detail (team_id for get_lineup) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the missing parameter and return-shape detail, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information; it discloses only team_id and implies a league table, leaving fields like position, points and ordering undocumented. It also omits that 'league' is required and limited to four competitions.

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?

The single required parameter 'league' is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The enum itself is self-explanatory and enumerates the four supported leagues, so the schema still carries the agent, but the description adds nothing about the parameter.

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?

States the resource (league table/standings) and a key returned field (team_id), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_lineup, get_offers and search_matches. It is not a verb-first statement, but the resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 reference to team_id 'för get_lineup' implies the intended workflow (fetch standings, then feed team_id into get_lineup), which is useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison to siblings such as search_matches.

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