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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: real NFL tiebreaking procedure, reporting which step decided each rank, computation from final scores, defaulting to current season, and a 2-credit cost. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact, information-dense sentences and a cost note. The purpose and output contents are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 standings tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description is complete: it covers scope, computed values, tiebreak behavior, default season, and cost. It does not need to repeat return fields already covered by the output schema.

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?

All three parameters are already fully described in the schema, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's season-default mention repeats the schema and adds no new parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with 'Use for regular-season standings and playoff seeding' and enumerates the exact output fields: record, win%, points, splits, streak, division rank, and conference seed. The scope is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_team_stats or get_advanced_stats.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: for regular-season standings and playoff seeding. It provides clear context and a default season, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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