mlb: Get 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 the shape of the payload (records, ranks, streaks), which is useful context but does not disclose season defaults, league defaults, or how standingsTypes changes output.

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 filler. Appropriately sized, though it sacrifices guidance for brevity.

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 parameterless-required read-only standings tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains the default season, the AL/NL default, or what wildCard/divisionLeaders types produce, all of which the agent must dig out of the schema.

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 all four parameters (fields, season, leagueId, standingsTypes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 (league standings) and enumerates the content returned (win/loss records, division ranks, streaks). It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling standings tools (nhl_get_standings, espn_get_standings, sportsdb_get_standings), leaving the agent to infer MLB scope 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, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as mlb_get_divisions or mlb_get_league_leaders. Usage is only implied by the tool name and returned-fields list.

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