Group standings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns live data and falls back to a roster at zero with a degraded flag if unavailable, providing valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key purpose and immediately usable by an AI agent.

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 presence of a full output schema and high schema parameter coverage, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input options, fallback behavior, and sibling tool differentiation. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds specific guidance for the 'group' parameter ('pass a group letter A–L, or omit for all'), which adds value beyond the schema's description. Other parameters are adequately covered by schema.

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 retrieves 'Live cumulative group standings' and specifies the input (group letter A–L or omit for all). It describes output format (ranked rows with team, played, W/D/L, goal difference, points) and distinguishes from siblings like get_today and get_next_fixture.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use alternatives: 'Use get_today for fixtures/scores and get_next_fixture for one team.' Also mentions fallback behavior (roster at zero, flagged degraded) when live standings are unavailable.

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