league_standings

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavior: standings are final for completed seasons and current for ongoing ones, and are split by conference. It does not address edge cases like unavailable seasons or what happens when no standings exist.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the tool's function and scoping, the second the required parameter format.

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 an output schema available and only one parameter clearly described, the definition is adequate for a simple read-only standings lookup, though a brief pointer to alternative tools would have strengthened it.

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 0%, so the description compensates by documenting the exact format for season ('YYYY-YY') with a concrete example, which is sufficient for the only parameter.

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 identifies the resource (standings) and scope (season, conference split), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_roster or stat_leaders, though the verb 'returns' is implied rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when to choose league_standings over siblings such as stat_leaders or find_team; the season format is the only usage detail, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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