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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint (matchday not available for fairness) and notes that rows only carry the columns the chosen view has, but it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or what the 'raw cells' look like in practice.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then views, then the matchday caveat, then routing to siblings. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only slight bloat is the row-column enumeration, though it does tell the agent what to expect.

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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the view taxonomy, temporal mode via matchday, its caveat, result shape, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the five view values. The description's gloss of each view adds modest semantic value beyond the bare enum labels, but matchday and competition_id are essentially restated. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 verb and resource ('Returns a competition's standings') and then enumerates the five view modes with a short gloss for each (fairness = fair-play table, cross = cross table). This makes the tool immediately distinguishable from siblings like fussballde_matchday or fussballde_position_history.

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 names when to use alternatives: 'Use fussballde_matchday for fixtures and results or fussballde_position_history for every matchday at once.' It also states the condition for using the matchday parameter and the one view where it is unavailable.

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