espn_standings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds the exact return structure, explains that children represent conferences/divisions, and notes 'Auth: none needed.' This adds meaningful context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, containing only three short sections: purpose, return structure, and example/auth note. Every sentence provides value with no repetition or 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?

For a read-only standings tool, the description covers purpose, return shape, parameter example, and authentication. Given the complete input schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 fully documents all parameters with descriptions. The description supplements this with a concrete example showing sport='basketball' and league='nba', and clarifies that season is optional (current or given). This adds practical usage guidance beyond the schema fields.

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?

Description explicitly states 'League standings / ladder: per-team wins, losses, win %, conference/division groupings' and provides an example for NBA. This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling ESPN tools like espn_scoreboard or espn_game_summary.

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?

Provides clear usage context by indicating 'for the current (or a given) season' and giving an example call with sport and league. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the generic sport/league parameters make its scope obvious.

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