Get standings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what data the tool returns. It does not mention what happens when 'season' is omitted or when standings data is unavailable, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and resource, followed by a compact list of valuable return fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the principal return content and scope. Minor gaps include not explaining how competition IDs are obtained and not specifying the default season behavior, but the schema examples and simple scope keep it largely complete.

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 the baseline is 3 because both parameters are already documented with examples. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming that standings relate to a competition, which is adequate given the schema's clarity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'league table for a competition', then enumerates the exact columns returned (rank, points, played, goals, form). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like openfoot_matches or openfoot_league_xg.

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 this tool is for retrieving full league standings for a competition, and the required 'competition' parameter reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as openfoot_league_xg, openfoot_competitions, or openfoot_search.

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