sportskeeda_standings_options

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it states the tool returns 'all live-offered college basketball season years and the conference slugs for the selected season,' which discloses both the read-only nature and the exact return content. It stops short of noting statelessness or that results are a fixed catalog, but this is solid disclosure for a discovery endpoint.

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, no filler, with the scope (seasons + conferences) front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back, compensating for the absent return schema. It is slightly under-complete in not relating itself to the sportskeeda_standings consumer or noting whether the slug must be a pre-existing standings slug, but overall an agent has what it needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the season parameter's schema text ('selects its conference list') essentially duplicates the description's 'conference slugs for the selected season.' Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 gives a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('Sportskeeda college standings seasons and conferences'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling sportskeeda_standings by framing itself as an options/enumeration lookup. It is clear what the tool returns, though the softer verb 'discover' is less precise than a plain 'list' would be.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling sportskeeda_standings, nor any stated prerequisites or ordering. The usage is only implied by the name and the word 'options' – an agent must infer that this is a pre-flight enumeration step to feed the standings call.

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