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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the table is unofficial and rankings come from recorded results according to the league's own rule and tie-breaks.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then moves through usage and parameter routing efficiently. It is somewhat dense in the first sentence and the final club/area warning is confusing, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 read-only query tool with complete input schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the table represents and when to use each input mode. It does not describe the return shape beyond 'table' and 'place', which is a minor 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%, so the baseline would be 3, and the description does add routing guidance such as using `league` and `area` together for a whole league. However, it also says 'Never pass a club or an area as the team,' which directly conflicts with the schema's `team` description allowing 'Team or club name,' creating real ambiguity for invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: building the Desk's unofficial league table from recorded results using the league's own rule and tie-breaks. It also scopes the two modes clearly, a team's flight table versus a whole-league table, which is enough to distinguish it from projection or cohort-oriented siblings.

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 gives explicit triggers: standings, how a team finished, who won the league, or 'the table'. It also explains the invocation alternatives: pass a team name, pass nothing for the member's own team, or pass `league` and `area` for a whole league, with examples.

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