fpl_classic_league

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description builds on this by disclosing pagination behavior (50 per page), the meaning of 'entry' vs manager id, rank movement semantics, and auth requirements. These are valuable behavioral details beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact return shape, field clarifications, a concise example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 complex paginated list with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object, field semantics, pagination, example, and authentication. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the sibling tool context.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, and the description adds semantic value by explaining leagueId 314 as the global league, how to find mini-league ids, and clarifying page size. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Classic (total-points) league standings, paginated,' which precisely names the resource and distinguishes it from H2H leagues. The return structure and example further reinforce the tool's specific 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?

The 'Classic (total-points)' qualifier clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the H2H sibling, and the pagination note gives practical context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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