seriea_standings

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the output structure: three tables, each with 20 teams, and the stats array with specific stat IDs. This provides an agent with a clear picture of what data to expect.

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 detailed yet organized, front-loading the main purpose and then specifying the return structure. The example adds value without being excessively long.

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?

The description compensates somewhat for missing annotations and output schema by detailing the return format, but it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the locale or seasonId parameters. The only hint is the example '2025/26 Serie A table', which marginally suggests the seasonId format, but no detail on locale.

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 a league table (standings) for a given season, and specifies it returns three tables (overall, home, away). It distinguishes from sibling tools like seriea_competitions and seriea_matches by focusing on standings.

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?

It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The context is implied but not formalized.

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