sportsbet_league_ladder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape, but does not disclose any pagination, ordering, or edge-case behavior. This is a moderate addition beyond annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a return snippet, and an auth note. Every sentence provides distinct value, and there is zero filler.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only, no output schema). The description covers purpose, return schema, and auth. Given the low complexity and complete schema, this is sufficient. A small deduction for not mentioning potential errors or result size, but overall adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single competitionId parameter is documented in the schema ('Sport competition id. Required — part of the URL path.'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a league ladder/standings for a sport competition, and explicitly lists the return fields. This is specific enough to distinguish from many non-ladder tools, but it doesn't differentiate from other ladder tools in the sibling list (e.g., nbl_ladder, squiggle_ladder) in terms of source or scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The only context ('for a sport competition') is implied by the resource, not a genuine usage guideline.

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