Standings

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral context: team lookups resolve the current phase and name a scheduled next phase, tournament lookups return all groups of the newest stage, and a 'Not started yet' table has no leader. The row-level contents are also disclosed. Remaining gap is any note on result size or ambiguity when multiple phases match.

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 preferred path is front-loaded in the first sentence after the resource statement, and each following sentence adds distinct information (alternate mode, row fields, edge case, citation). It is dense but has no filler; only slightly 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates row fields and handles the degenerate 'Not started yet' case, plus both input modes. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining the semantic relationship between team and tournament (two mutually alternative entry points) and the practical advantage of each, information the schema descriptions do not convey.

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 names the exact resource ('League, group or Swiss standings') and immediately explains the two retrieval modes, which maps cleanly onto the two optional parameters. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_results and get_upcoming, though it opens with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 states a preference ('Preferred: pass the team'), explains why that path is preferable (finds the phase the team is currently playing in, works when you only know 'Worlds' or 'LCK'), and gives the explicit alternative condition ('Alternatively pass the exact tournament name'). The when-to-use decision is fully specified.

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