Get League Ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the returned data categories. It does not explain whether omitted parameters fall back to a default league or day, whether the operation is read-only, or what scope or permissions apply.

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 efficient sentence with the key resource front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage details.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves critical calling context unexplained: what 'day' and 'league_id' do, what happens when they are omitted, and how this ranking differs from league overview or competition table results.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'day' or 'league_id' parameters. 'Matchday points' and 'league table' weakly hint at their meaning, but optionality, defaults, and accepted formats are left entirely undocumented.

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 a specific resource: a league table of managers, with the ranked metrics listed in parentheses. It distinguishes this from a competition table of teams, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_league_overview.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The intended use is only implied by the name and the phrase 'League table of managers.'

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