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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond those: the underlying Dixon-Coles model, the free Docteur Bet source, the tens-of-thousands simulation basis, and the availability restrictions. It stops short of explaining pagination/response format, so it is not a 5.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the main output front-loaded, followed by the availability caveat. Every clause carries information, though the model/provenance detail is slightly verbose for the core payload.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (title chances, CL/European places, relegation, projected points), which is what an agent needs. The availability caveat and list_competitions pointer round it out; only the response shape/size remains unstated.

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% and both parameters (lang, competition) are fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the competition argument ('table of a league') without adding format or matching details beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the current table of a league with a season projection') and enumerates the exact outputs (title odds, CL/European places, relegation, projected points). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_match_probabilities or get_team_strengths.

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?

It gives explicit scope conditions: not available for cups or leagues whose format the simulator does not handle, and routes the agent to list_competitions to check support. It does not, however, contrast the tool against sibling probability/strength tools, which is the only missing routing guidance.

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