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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the paid-call model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and, importantly, that failed calls are not charged — a materially useful billing behavior. It also states playoff teams are flagged, which is a data-shape fact not present in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then pricing — the ordering an agent needs. The enumeration of every column is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations in place, the description covers purpose, defaults, season encoding, and cost. The only real gap is how far back standings data is actually populated versus the accepted 1918 floor on the parameter.

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 parameter is already documented as an end-year in the 1918–2026 range. The description's season convention note ('2025 = 2024-25 season') largely restates the schema text, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 resource (NHL season standings from Hockey-Reference), its scope (every team in East and West), and the exact columns returned. An agent can distinguish it from dev_espn_standings or dev_espn_nhl_scoreboard purely from this sentence.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain — standings, not scores or live game data — but the description never names an alternative tool or a when-to-prefer condition, despite several NHL/sports siblings existing. The agent has to infer the boundary rather than being routed.

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