laliga_standing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the exact return shape, the fact that it returns 20 entries, and the authentication behavior. It also provides a concrete example of the input. This adds meaningful behavioral context such as what data is included and that no key is required, though it does not cover error handling or pagination (not needed for a single-table tool).

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 structured with labeled sections (Returns, Example, Auth) and is information-dense without being overly verbose. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, and all subsequent details are relevant. It is slightly long but each part earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return structure, an example input, and auth information. The tool is simple (one parameter, no enums), and the description covers the key aspects needed to invoke it successfully. It could mention how to find valid slugs (e.g., referring to laliga_subscriptions), but this is a minor gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example slug and explanation that it is part of the URL path. The description's example mirrors the schema's example without adding new semantic detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full weight.

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 'Full league table for a season' with a specific resource (La Liga standings) and enumerates the exact fields returned (played, won, drawn, etc.). The example and return structure make the tool's function unambiguous and distinguish it from other standings tools by confirming it is the complete table for a season.

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 implies usage context: to retrieve a full league table for a given season, with an example slug. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., pl_standings, seriea_standings) or mention any exclusions. The auth note provides some operational context but not comparative guidance.

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