squiggle_standings

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 that no authentication is needed, that the returned data is actual (not projected), and provides the exact return structure. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a return type listing, an example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The front-loaded purpose sentence makes the tool's function immediately obvious.

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 simple standings tool, the description provides the return shape, an example, and auth status, making it largely self-sufficient. However, it does not specify behavior when year or round are omitted, nor does it explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool squiggle_ladder, leaving minor but non-critical gaps.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for q, year, and round, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example (q='standings', year=2026) that clarifies typical usage, but it does not explain the round parameter beyond what the schema already states. Thus it meets the baseline without substantial added value.

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 opens with 'The ACTUAL AFL ladder — real wins/losses/percentage, not a projection,' which unambiguously states the tool returns real AFL standings and distinguishes it from projected ladders. The return structure further confirms the purpose. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the resource and differentiation are clear enough for a top score.

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 phrase 'not a projection' implies this tool should be used when actual standings are needed, but no alternative tool is explicitly named. The example illustrates a typical call but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage context.

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