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 fully covered. The description adds only mild context ('official', '36-team' implying the full table with one row per club); it does not mention ranking criteria, tiebreakers, or whether the table is live vs. snapshot.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope are stated immediately and nothing 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially complete. Minor room remains: it doesn't say what the table contains (position, points, goal difference) or whether the 2026/27 season data is current.

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 coverage is 100% with an enum that already documents 'epl' and 'ucl' meanings. The description restates the same competition mapping without adding format, default-behavior, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('official 2026/27 ... standings') and names the exact two competitions covered. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_fixtures or get_clubs.

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 description implies usage (fetch league or UCL standings) and the schema default of 'epl' hints at the common case, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternative sibling tools for related data.

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