mfl_league_standings

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: the return shape varies by league configuration, COLUMN_NAMES=1 disambiguates the key meanings, auth works without a key, and a fallback APIKEY parameter exists. This is genuine added value, not tautology.

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 dense and front-loaded with the purpose, then breaks into Returns/Example/Auth sections. It's economical for the information it carries; could drop a couple of words (e.g., the example block is borderline) but stays justifiable.

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 a 6-param tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a huge sibling list, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, varying columns, how to interpret them, example invocation, and auth state. Missing an explicit 'alias to sibling' and deeper detail on auth side effects is minor. A cautious agent can call this correctly.

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 six parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds clarity on COLUMN_NAMES behavior and the auth trick, but the core param semantics (year, L, JSON, TYPE) are already fully specified in the schema; the description mostly restates what 'leave as-is' means.

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 'Current standings — record, points for and against, and the league's own standings columns' names a specific verb and resource with concrete content. It clearly distinguishes from generic standings tools (seriea_standings, sportmonks_standings, nhl_standings) by pointing at MFL league configuration and custom columns.

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 an example call, explicit notes on required year/league id, the optional but key COLUMN_NAMES flag, and auth guidance (works without a key; cookie unlocks more). It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives (e.g., 'for real-league standings use X'), but the MFL fantasy context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly among 600+ siblings.

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