seriea_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context: no auth required, exact return structure (three tables, team fields, stats keys), and an example seasonId. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond them.

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return schema and example. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value (structure, stats explanation, auth). No wasted 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 read-only standings tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response format, stats semantics, example seasonId, and auth. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example seasonId value, which helps illustrate the format, but does not explain the locale parameter beyond the schema's 'Label language.' Minimal added meaning.

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 a league table for a season, with specific structure (three tables: overall, home, away). It is distinct from siblings by describing the three-table organization, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other standings/league information.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It only provides an example seasonId and notes auth is not needed. Does not clarify how this differs from related tools like seriea_team_stats or pl_standings.

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