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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious data behavior: points include official deductions and deducted clubs carry a points_deducted field. It says nothing about pagination or error handling beyond the schema's 404 note.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: resource first, then usage examples, then the points-deduction caveat. The opening 'League table.' slightly duplicates the title, but nothing is bloated.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and it only partly does so — it mentions points and points_deducted but not positions, team names, or other row fields. Combined with no error/edge-case guidance beyond the schema's 404 note, it is adequate but leaves gaps for a standings tool.

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 the single league parameter documents accepted values, variants, default, and 404 behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information, so baseline 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?

States the resource ('League table') and two concrete example queries ('show me the Championship table', 'who is top of La Liga?') that make the retrieval semantics unambiguous. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with get_team/get_results, but the sibling names are distinct enough resources that confusion is unlikely.

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 example phrasings implicitly tell the agent when this tool applies ('show me the table', 'who is top'), which is decent contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. historical season tables or cup competitions) and no mention of alternatives like get_results.

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