get_league

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this is a read operation (getting an overview) but doesn't disclose details like whether it returns live or historical data, pagination, or any rate limits. It's a simple read tool, so the lack of extensive behavioral detail is acceptable, but it could mention what 'overview' includes beyond the listed items.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key components. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (table, top scorers, fixtures) and what input is needed. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope (e.g., current season vs. all time), but for a simple overview tool, this is 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter, leagueId, is described as 'FotMob league ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline 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's purpose: retrieving a league's overview including table, top scorers, and fixtures. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('league'), and the mention of specific components (table, top scorers, fixtures) helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_team or get_player, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_matches_by_date.

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 implies usage context (when you need a league overview) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_matches_by_date or get_team. It doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer appropriate usage.

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