formulae: Get team standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the season-scoping context and says nothing about return shape, pagination, or how standings are ordered, which is acceptable but not rich given the lower bar set by annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the input dependency. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema description of championship_id, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 simple read-only standings lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the needed purpose and input provenance. No output schema exists, but the return concept (team championship standings) is clear enough that little more is required.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats the schema's note that championship_id comes from formulae_get_championships. The optional 'fields' projection parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Formula E teams' championship standings) scoped to a season. It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling formulae_get_driver_standings because it explicitly names 'teams' rather than drivers.

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?

Gives a clear usage context by telling the agent to supply a championshipId sourced from formulae_get_championships, which establishes the call order. It stops short of any explicit when-not-to-use or naming of alternatives such as driver standings, so it falls just below the top band.

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