Games Get Standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful business detail — 'Echoes the season ESPN returned' — but nothing about rate limits, auth, or pagination, so it stays at the baseline-plus level.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned contents. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical example is slightly padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by listing the fields returned (records, percentages, games back, streaks, differential). Combined with full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results correctly, though the shape of the standings (grouped by division/conference) is only implied.

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%, with sport, league, and season each thoroughly documented (including the season-end-year convention per sport). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (regular-season standings), and enumerates the returned metrics (win-loss records, win %, games back, streaks, differential), which strongly implies a distinct function from rankings or power-index siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so differentiation from games_get_rankings is left implicit.

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?

'Current or historical' and the season parameter note convey when the tool applies, but there is no explicit routing between this and siblings like games_get_rankings, games_get_power_index, or games_get_futures. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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