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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the view-mode vocabulary (home/away/form/xG) which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about return shape, data freshness, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action and view options, then the prerequisite lookup tools. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly dense and could separate the view enumeration more cleanly.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and covering annotations, the description supplies the missing prerequisite chain (fotmob_league, fotmob_seasons) that the schema alone doesn't establish. It is nearly complete for this tool's complexity; only the view enumeration lacking a corresponding documented parameter 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 single league_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from fotmob/leagues). The description's mention of view modes does not map to any declared parameter (no enum for view), so it adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Fetch FotMob league standings') and enumerates the specific view types offered (all, home, away, form, expected-goals). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, fotmob_standings-adjacent tools or fotmob_league, beyond naming them as lookups.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by naming fotmob_league and fotmob_seasons as the tools to find the required league_id and season, which is a genuine routing instruction. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention of the alternative sofascore_standings/flashscore_tournament_standings siblings that overlap in function.

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