ncaa_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these. It details the return structure, notes that inner column names vary by sport and contain spaces, and clarifies that all values are strings. It also states that no authentication is needed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs essential details (return shape, grouping, column variability, auth) into a concise format without redundancy. The example is helpful and placed logically after the return structure.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by fully specifying the return format and grouping behavior. It covers auth and provides an example. However, it mentions 'page' and 'pages' without explaining pagination semantics, leaving a minor gap for a tool with this complexity.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a concrete example (sport='football', division='fbs') that clarifies valid values and usage. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'slug' 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 what the tool does: returns conference standings for a college sport and division. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'college sport' (NCAA) and providing a detailed return structure grouped by conference. The example for FBS football adds specificity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While many sibling standings tools exist, there is no mention of selection criteria or exclusions. The example implicitly shows usage, but no explicit guidance is given.

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