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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context by enumerating the view types returned (home/away/form/xG), but says nothing about caching, freshness, or how the views are selected.

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 efficient sentence is front-loaded with the core resource ('league standings') before listing the view variants. No filler, though it is terse enough that it could have absorbed one routing clause at no cost.

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 present, the description need not explain return values, and for a one-parameter read-only tool this is essentially complete. The only minor gap is that obtaining the league_id is left entirely to the schema note rather than the description.

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 single required league_id is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and scope: 'FotMob league standings' with the available views (all, home, away, form, xG). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fotmob_league (metadata) or fotmob_seasons, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 name and description (fetch standings for a given league), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated in the description, and no routing to or away from sibling tools. The schema, not the description, carries the 'league id from fotmob/leagues' hint.

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