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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior outside the annotations: results are split into groups where the competition has them, and the payload includes the standings page URL plus the list of available seasons.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the resource before the field list, and there is no filler. It is a single dense, somewhat run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

For a read-only, single-required-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly; the remaining description of return fields is largely redundant with the output schema.

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 sport, season and competition are all documented in the schema itself; the description only repeats the season default and the example season format, adding no new syntax or constraint information.

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 names the exact resource (league table of a competition) and enumerates the columns returned (position, played, won, drawn, lost, for/against, points, form), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like match_details, head_to_head, live_scores and team.

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 states the default season behavior ('current season by default, or a season such as "2025/26"'), which is implied usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this vs an alternative, nor any prerequisites beyond the schema's note about a slug requiring sport.

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