nhl_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed' and a detailed return object with all fields. It doesn't discuss rate limits or date interpretation nuances, but with strong annotations present, the description goes beyond the minimum.

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: a one-line summary, a compact return schema, an example, and auth note. No word is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing every return field (teamName, points, divisionSequence, clinchIndicator, etc.). It also covers auth and provides an example. This is sufficient for a tool with one optional parameter and read-only semantics.

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 fully documents the single 'date' parameter with format 'YYYY-MM-DD' or 'now' and a default. The description only repeats the 'now' example, adding no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource as league standings with division/conference/wildcard sequencing and clinch indicators, and the name 'nhl_standings' makes the sport unambiguous. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'Get', but the 'Returns:' clause effectively states what the tool does and distinguishes it from other standings tools.

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 gives an example for 'now' standings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mlb_standings, pl_standings, or other standings tools. No exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned, so the agent gets the result but not decision support.

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