Get conference standings

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful context about the scope and content of the response: every conference team, records, placement, and highlighted statistical leaders. It does not discuss failure modes or authentication, but these are not significant concerns for a read-only lookup.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the core output, clarifies scope with a sibling contrast, and adds the secondary stat-leaders behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining return content: full standings, records, placement, and stat leaders. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety, so the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters (team, season) are fully documented with formats and examples. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'a team,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: the full conference standings table for a team's conference, including records and placement, plus the statistical leaders MaxPreps highlights. It also distinguishes itself from maxpreps_get_team, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus maxpreps_get_team: use it for the whole standings table, not just the team's own line. This is a clear routing instruction to the most relevant sibling.

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