apisports_basketball_standings

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

Adds a caveat that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, plus notes the auth requirement. Since annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, this description builds on them by adding a critical data-quality warning without contradicting the annotations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The example, caveat, and auth note each serve a purpose, though the return shape snippet adds some verbosity.

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 simple read-only standings tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, auth, and return shape with a caveat. It does not document pagination or precise response behavior, but the annotations and simple nature make this adequate.

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 cover all three parameters (team, league, season) with types and examples. The description provides a concrete example of league and season values but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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?

Describes the tool as returning basketball standings for a league and season, which is a specific verb+resource. The basketball scope clearly distinguishes it from other standings tools, and the return shape example further clarifies its function.

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 guidance on when to choose this over sibling standings tools like balldontlie_nba_standings or apisports_football_standings. The description implies usage for basketball data from API-Sports but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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