espnfantasy_standings

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: auth behavior ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and a detailed return shape. No contradictions with 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 well-structured and information-dense: a one-line summary, a clear return type, an example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 return structure and an example. It doesn't elaborate on the view parameter's effect beyond the schema, but for a simple read-only standings tool, the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description contributes an example invocation but no new parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 states 'League standings — records, points for/against, division and playoff seeding' and provides a detailed return object, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like espnfantasy_teams or espnfantasy_rosters by focusing specifically on standings.

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 when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. The description implies use when league standings are needed, and the example shows a typical request, but it does not compare to other espnfantasy tools or explain when not to use this tool.

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