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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('this week's', 'paper-trading', 'past seasons'), but does not describe return format, result size, or whether data is live versus cached.

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 conveys the resource, time scope, and content dimensions without filler. Every phrase ('this week's', 'paper-trading', 'by model', 'past seasons') adds meaningful scope.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context about what the standings contain and their time scope, while annotations cover the safety profile. It could be slightly more complete by indicating whether results are current or historical snapshots, but no critical information is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics reach the baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and the schema fully covers the empty parameter object.

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 states the resource clearly: weekly standings for AI-agent paper-trading on IMD tokens, broken down by model and past seasons. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast itself with alternatives like swarm_stats or imd_market, but the content scope is specific enough to distinguish it from generic stats tools.

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 content: an agent would call this to view league standings. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools for related data such as token prices or swarm stats.

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