sofascore_standings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the API is 'credential-free public JSON,' which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. Since the tool is read-only and simple, this is adequate but not rich. The description adds some transparency but does not cover all potential behavioral aspects.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the enum is explicitly stated, and the parameter-sourcing tip is concise. Every sentence earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 (3 required params, all documented, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: what it returns, the source credential-free nature, and how to obtain the input IDs. It does not describe the output structure in detail, but for a straightforward league table, this is acceptable. The lack of error-handling details is a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where to source the `id` and `season` parameters ('Get `id` from search and `season` from tournament-seasons'). It also restates the `type` enum values, which is redundant with the schema, but the sourcing guidance is beyond schema. This additional context justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a league table for a competition season from SofaScore's credential-free public JSON.' It identifies the source (SofaScore) and the exact output (league table). It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing how to obtain the required IDs from other SofaScore tools, making the tool's scope clear.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'Get `id` from search and `season` from tournament-seasons.' This tells the agent the prerequisite steps and which sibling tools to use for the parameters. It does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over other standings tools (e.g., flashscore_tournament_standings), but it implicitly guides the agent on the workflow.

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