Games Get League Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a hierarchy (conference/division/structural groups), which is some useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about scope, completeness, or freshness of the data.

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 with no waste. Every word 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 a league-hierarchy tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description should explain the return shape, nesting, and how sport/league are matched. It does none of that, leaving an agent with little beyond the name.

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%, so the description could add format or expected-value guidance for sport and league. It does not: it names no parameters and gives no examples. With only 2 parameters and a baseline of 4 for low-param tools, the lack of any parameter guidance and the 0% coverage pull this down to a middling score.

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 a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (league conference, division, and structural group hierarchies), which is clearer than a pure tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from adjacent siblings like games_get_standings or games_get_league_events, which also expose league structure. An agent must infer relevance from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, of when this should be preferred over games_get_standings, or of any exclusion criteria. For a tool with many similar league-scoped siblings, this is a notable gap.

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