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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds the non-obvious operational facts: a $0.002 USDC charge per successful call via x402 across Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not billed. That cost/failure-charging disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing pagination, refresh cadence, or how stale the standings snapshot is.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what the data is and what fields it contains comes first, with season semantics, playoff flag, sibling routing, and pricing trailing in that order. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only slack is the season-convention sentence duplicating the schema.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers source, scope, fields, the playoff flag, season convention, pricing, and billing on failure. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though coverage of result-set size or ordering would have closed the last gap.

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% and the season parameter already documents the range and default, so the description is not required to carry this. The added sentence ('Season given by the year it ends (2025 = 2024-25 season)') is a helpful disambiguation of end-year vs start-year convention, but largely restates the schema's own note.

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 (NHL season standings from Hockey-Reference), defines the scope (every team in East and West) and enumerates the returned fields (division, games, wins, losses, OT losses, points, goals for/against). An agent can tell immediately this is a full-league standings table, not a scoreboard or player-stat tool.

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 explicitly routes to alternative tools with a condition attached (dev_baseball_reference for MLB player season stats, dev_nascar_racing_reference for NASCAR per-driver stats), which clarifies the boundary. The gap is that it does not differentiate against the NHL-relevant siblings in this server (e.g. dev_espn_standings, dev_espn_nhl_scoreboard), so within-sport choice is still left to inference.

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