cfbd_rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly noting that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, warns the agent to inspect the actual payload, and discloses that the provider key is absent. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 core purpose, then return shape, caveat, example, and auth. It is structured with clear sections, but the caveat and example are somewhat verbose. Every sentence provides useful information, though the example could be considered redundant given the shape. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return structure, which it does thoroughly with a nested shape example and nesting note. It also covers authentication and includes usage caveats. It lacks potential details like pagination or error behavior, but for a 3-parameter read-only tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (year, week, seasonType), so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds a concrete example ('2024 week 10 polls') but this does not significantly deepen understanding beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing weekly poll rankings (AP, Coaches, Playoff Committee), which is a specific resource distinct from other CFBD tools like cfbd_ratings_elo or cfbd_games. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' or 'List', but the title and description together make the purpose 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the CFBD siblings. It implies usage for poll rankings but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools for other rating types (e.g., cfbd_ratings_elo). The auth note is a prerequisite, not a tool-selection guideline.

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