mlb_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a detailed return structure, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 two sentences plus a compact return format block. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a structured output example without redundant prose, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description provides a return structure that is essential. It covers the core use case and auth. However, it does not explain how the 'standingsTypes' parameter might alter the output structure (e.g., when requesting 'wildCard' alone), leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description only repeats the leagueId mapping already in the schema and does not add new meaning or clarify parameter interactions, so it stays at the baseline.

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 'Division standings — per-team W/L, pct, GB, streak, run differential, wild-card and division ranks,' which clearly specifies the resource and data contents. The tool name 'mlb_standings' and the league ID mapping distinguish it from other standings tools.

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 provides clear context by stating this is about MLB division standings and gives specific leagueId instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for other sports use other standings tools'), though this is implied by the name and scope.

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