mlb_standings

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

Despite having no annotations, the description provides a detailed return structure, showing the hierarchy of records, division, team, and per-team stats. This helps the agent understand the output shape. However, it does not disclose non-obvious behaviors like rate limits or side effects, which are minimal for a read-only 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 succinct: one explanatory sentence and a compact representation of the return format. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the key function. It earns its space 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 standings tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return structure adequately. However, it lacks explanations for multiple parameters, which would be needed for full completeness. It is sufficient for typical use with defaults.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains leagueId's meaning (103=AL, 104=NL) and shows its default. Other parameters (date, season, hydrate, standingsTypes) are neglected, leaving the agent to infer or ignore them. This is insufficient given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Division standings — per-team W/L, pct, GB, streak, run differential, wild-card and division ranks.' It specifies the resource (standings) and lists the specific data fields, making it easily distinguishable from sibling MLB tools like mlb_schedule or mlb_team.

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 instructs to 'Pass leagueId (103=AL, 104=NL)', giving a clear usage hint for the primary parameter. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but the context implies it is the go-to for MLB standings, given the sibling list lacks another standings tool for MLB.

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