sportskeeda_page_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that tables are server-rendered, that season/type are page-conditional, and that a page with no structured tables returns an upstream error — real behavioral context. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape, so gaps remain.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it returns, conditional params, the separate trade-value endpoint, error behavior), with the primary purpose front-loaded. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 the description compensates by enumerating the table types an agent can expect and by flagging the error case for pages without tables. Combined with 100% schema coverage of the three params, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-format detail is absent.

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 genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'type' and 'season' are only valid when the selected page exposes them (and that page-options reveals them), which is conditional-acceptance semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get Sportskeeda structured sports tables') and enumerates the table kinds returned (team, player, roster, leaderboard, ranking, depth, playoff), which implicitly maps onto narrower siblings like sportskeeda_standings and sportskeeda_depth_chart. It explicitly separates the trade-value chart as a different endpoint. Not a full 5 because it never directly names the competing siblings an agent should prefer.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: season and type are only accepted if the page offers them, and points the agent at page-options to discover valid values. It also routes the trade-value use case elsewhere. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X' statement against the narrower sibling tools.

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