Get conference standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the output scope (conference-wide vs team-specific) and the inclusion of statistical leaders, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data volume, pagination, or refresh behavior. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 tightly written in two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and differentiator, the second adds the secondary feature (statistical leaders) and the read-only nature. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (standings with records/placement, plus statistical leaders). It does not mention any additional return details like format or ordering, but for a straightforward lookup tool, this is sufficient. Sibling tools like maxpreps_get_team are referenced, providing helpful context.

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% — both parameters (team, season) are fully described in the schema with types and examples. The description does not add additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's function: returning the conference standings table with all teams' records and placement. It explicitly distinguishes from maxpreps_get_team by noting the scope difference. The verb 'returns' and resource 'standings table' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool over maxpreps_get_team ('not just this team's own line'), which is an explicit alternative. However, it does not discuss when to use it versus maxpreps_get_stat_leaders for the statistical leaders portion, leaving a minor gap in guidance for that secondary feature.

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