apitennis_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the unverified return shape and the need for a personal API key, which goes beyond annotations. This extra transparency is useful for the agent.

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 well-structured with line breaks separating the summary, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. Each section earns its place, though the unverified-shape note is a bit verbose. It is concise enough for the complexity involved.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by providing the expected return shape and a clear caveat. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameters completely. The only gap is explicit alternative guidance, but for a simple rankings tool the description is largely complete.

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%, with both parameters documented ('Leave as-is' and 'Tour. One of: ATP, WTA'). The description adds an example showing exact usage, but this is redundant with the schema. No additional parameter semantics (e.g., formats, behavior) are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'ATP or WTA rankings,' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from other sports' standings tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling wta_rankings tool. The absence of an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get') is minor since the intent is unambiguous.

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 provides an example call and auth requirement, which gives practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wta_rankings or other standings tools). Usage is implied by the ATP/WTA scope but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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