nbl_ladder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data structure and parameter interpretation, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a return format example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an example. No unnecessary words.

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 ladder tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, one parameter, and return fields. It lacks explanation for the seasonType parameter and potential errors, but is mostly complete for typical use.

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 description adds meaning for the 'year' parameter (season start year, 2025 = current NBL26), compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, it fails to explain the optional 'seasonType' parameter, leaving it ambiguous. Overall, partial improvement over schema.

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 NBL ladder standings for a season, specifying the clubs and data fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools as the only NBL ladder tool, with no ambiguity.

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 explains the year parameter meaning and gives an example, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other ladder tools or alternatives. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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