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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safe, nondestructive behavior is clear. The description adds minimal context ('standings table') but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or handling of missing data. With strong annotations, the additional value is limited but acceptable.

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 that directly states what the tool does. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple purpose, an output schema (not shown) likely describes the return structure, so the description does not need to cover that. However, it misses default behavior (current season) and edge cases. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 50% (only 'season' has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter. It does not explain what 'league_id' expects or how 'season' should be formatted beyond the example. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Standings table for a league/season' clearly states the tool returns a standings table for a given league and season. The verb is implicit but understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'league_teams' or 'get_team' by specifying 'standings' vs. team-level data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to prefer this over 'league_teams' or 'search_teams'. The agent is left to infer the context.

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