get_league_standings

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

The description implies a read-only operation (show), but does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints. With no annotations, full burden falls on the description.

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 with no redundant words, effectively conveying the tool's function.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not detail the response structure (e.g., format of standings). It gives enough for a simple fetch but lacks specifics on return type or error handling.

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 description adds context that league_id identifies the mini-league, but it largely reiterates the schema's 'League Id' title. It provides some clarification without deep semantic detail.

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 verb 'Show', the resource 'standings', and specifies 'classic mini-league' and 'by its ID', making it distinct and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_mini_league). It does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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