nbl_ladder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'Auth: none needed' and describing the exact return payload structure (type, count, data array with fields), which helps the agent understand what to expect.

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: it opens with the purpose, clarifies the year parameter, lists the return format, provides an example, and ends with auth. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only standings tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return fields, an example, and auth requirements. Combined with the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the `year` mapping and provides an example ({'year':2025,'seasonType':'regular'}), but the parameters are already well-described in the schema (e.g., 'Season START year', enum values). The example adds marginal value but does not introduce new semantics.

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 identifies the tool as returning the NBL ladder (standings) for a season, including the specific data fields (position, played/won/lost, points_percentage, etc.) and the number of clubs (10). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nbl_schedule or pl_standings by focusing on the ladder resource and season scope.

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 on how to invoke the tool, including the meaning of the `year` parameter with the 2025=NBL26 mapping and the `seasonType` values, plus a concrete example for the current season. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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