espn_standings

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

No annotations available, so description carries full burden. It notes the data comes from ESPN's credential-free public JSON, indicating no auth needed. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or that it is read-only, which would be helpful.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details parameters. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It mentions grouping by conference/division but could be more specific. However, for a standings tool, the implied output is clear enough.

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 descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Sport key'). Description adds explicit enum values for sport, league, and seasontype, and states season defaults to current. This adds significant meaning 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?

Description states tool returns league standings grouped by conference/division, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like espn_scoreboard (scores) and espn_team (team info).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is implied but not contrasted with alternative tools. Would benefit from stating this is only for standings, not other ESPN data.

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