espn_rankings

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

No annotations exist; the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the data comes from ESPN's public JSON without credentials, indicating it is read-only and freely accessible. However, it omits details like whether rankings are current/historical, pagination, or rate limits, slightly limiting transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose: name, source, examples, and parameter constraints. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, two parameters with clear enum values), the description covers all essential information: what it returns, for which leagues, and data source. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but they are generic ('Sport key', 'College league key'). The description adds concrete, actionable values (e.g., 'football' and 'basketball' for sport, specific league identifiers), saving the agent from guessing or looking up enums. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it returns poll rankings for college leagues, using a specific verb ("Returns") and resource ("poll rankings"). It distinguishes from sibling tools like espn_standings or espn_teams by specifying the exact domain (college leagues) and giving examples (AP Top 25).

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 explicitly limits usage to college leagues and lists acceptable values for sport and league. It implies when-to-use (need poll rankings) but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives among the many sibling ESPN tools. Still, the scope is well-defined.

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