Games Get Rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (which polls and fields come back), which matters since there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about scope limits or freshness of the polls beyond what annotations provide.

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 that promptly identifies the verb, the resource, and the concrete polls returned. The parenthetical poll list is slightly dense but every element earns its place by disambiguating scope.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes what comes back (current and previous ranks, votes, records) and which sports are covered. The only gap is the absence of any guidance on sibling disambiguation for ranking-adjacent tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes sport examples (NCAAF, NCAAB) that go beyond the schema's terse 'e.g. basketball' and 'e.g. nba, eng.1' examples, though those schema examples actually point at pro leagues, leaving the intended sport/league vocabulary mildly ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (Top 25 national polls and rankings), and enumerates the exact polls returned (AP Top 25, Coaches Poll, CFP rankings). This clearly separates it from siblings like games_get_standings and games_get_power_index, which describe different ranking concepts.

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 the usage context by naming the polls and sports covered, but never says when to choose this over games_get_standings, games_get_power_index, or other ranking-like siblings. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given, so routing must be inferred.

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