pl_standings

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

The description provides the full response return shape, explains the effect of live=true (folding in in-progress matches), and notes that no authentication is needed. These details complement the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 with a short definition, a returns block, an example, and an auth note. It is somewhat lengthy but each section earns its place, and the code blocks make it scannable.

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 read-only standings tool, the description is quite complete: it specifies the output schema, live behavior, auth requirements, and a concrete example. A minor gap is not pointing to how to discover valid cid/sid values (e.g., via pl_competitions), but this is not critical.

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 already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds concrete context by mapping cid=8 to the Premier League and sid=2025 to the 2025/26 season, going beyond the schema's field 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 it returns the league table for a season and specifies the entry structure, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from other standings tools, but the pl_ prefix and example (cid=8, sid=2025) convey Premier League context effectively.

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 example and the live parameter explanation, indicating when to fetch live standings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like pl_competitions or other sports' standings tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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