ncaa: Get rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and repeat-call profile. The description adds the set of poll types but says nothing extra about behavior, e.g. whether an omitted poll returns all polls or how weeks/years scope results.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: annotations carry the safety profile and the schema documents all parameters. It nevertheless omits useful context such as what happens when poll/week/year are omitted or how fields filtering behaves.

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 every parameter including poll, week, year, division, and fields is already documented in the schema. The description's poll examples ('AP, Coaches, CFP') loosely reinforce the poll parameter but add no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema.

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 (NCAA rankings/polls) and names concrete poll examples (AP, Coaches, CFP). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling ncaa_get_standings by using 'rankings/polls' rather than standings, but never says so explicitly.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as ncaa_get_standings or espn_get_standings. The only contextual cue is 'for a sport', which merely echoes the required parameter rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right pick.

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