motogp_standings

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the return structure (classification list with rider, team, constructor fields) and explicitly stating no authentication is needed, which goes 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 compact and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then the return shape, a concrete example, and authentication requirement. Every section earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description provides a sufficient return outline and a realistic example. It is complete enough for a two-parameter read-only lookup, though the meaning of the 'file' field in the response is not explained.

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 schema covers both parameters completely, and the description adds no new constraints or formats beyond what the schema provides. The example gives concrete UUIDs but does not enhance the semantics of the parameters themselves.

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 the tool returns championship standings for a specific class and season, which distinguishes it from other standings tools and MotoGP session-specific endpoints. The example clarifies the exact resource being accessed.

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?

Usage is implied through the description and example, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like motogp_session_classification or other standings endpoints. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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