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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context that annotations cannot: points include official deductions and deducted clubs carry a points_deducted row, which matters for interpreting standings.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the example intents. Every sentence carries information, though the examples and the deduction note could be slightly tighter.

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 usefully explains the one non-obvious return field (points_deducted) and how points are computed. For a single-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 schema already documents the accepted league values, variants, default, and 404 behavior. The description adds nothing about the league parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource, the league table/standings, and the example queries show precisely what question it answers. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_fixtures, get_results, and get_team, though it never states a verb beyond the title restatement.

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 requests ("show me the Championship table", "who is top of La Liga?") imply the usage context well, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing guidance relative to compare_teams or get_results.

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