Group standings

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already disclose safety and variability. The description adds the behavior of omitting the group parameter to get all standings, which is useful but doesn't address potential errors or output size.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose 'Group table(s)'. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, structure of standings, or how other parameters (tz, lang, flavor) affect output. The tool is simple but lacks completeness for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly explains the 'group' parameter behavior already present in the schema, adding no extra meaning. No other parameter details are added.

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 returns 'Group table(s)' which implies standings data. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_live' or 'get_match' by focusing on standings. However, it could be more explicit about what the table contains (e.g., points, goals).

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 provides usage guidance by explaining the 'group' parameter behavior (pass a letter or omit for all). However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like 'get_live' or 'get_match'.

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