Games Get Standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete payload shape (records, percentages, games back, streaks, differential), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, response format, or which league/sport values are accepted.

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 leads with the verb and resource, then lists outputs efficiently. The trailing field enumeration is slightly long but each item adds real information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's field list usefully compensates for return-value documentation. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no differentiation from sibling standings tools, the definition is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent invoking it.

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% and there are three parameters (sport, league, season), none of which the description explains. 'Current or historical' only loosely gestures at the season parameter and never states its format, accepted values, or default-null behavior.

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 ('standings') and enumerates the returned data (win-loss records, win percentages, games back, streaks, differential). It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like games_get_rankings or games_get_power_index, which an agent could plausibly confuse with standings data.

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 notes it covers 'current or historical' standings but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as games_get_rankings. An agent has no basis for choosing this over the other standings-adjacent siblings.

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