ncaa: Get standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing further about return shape, pagination, season availability, or how stale/live data behaves, so it does not meaningfully exceed the annotation baseline.

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; the verb and resource come first. The trailing 'optionally for a specific year' is slightly redundant with the schema's optional year field but is not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries no information about what standings data is returned (columns, grouping, ranking order), and it never says which seasons/years are valid. For a read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result set.

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 (year, sport, fields, division) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description only echoes sport/division/year and adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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+resource ('Get NCAA standings') with scope qualifiers (sport, division, year), which clearly separates it from ncaa_get_rankings, ncaa_get_stats and ncaa_get_scoreboard. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with those siblings.

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 only usage cue is the phrase 'optionally for a specific year.' There is no statement of when to prefer this over ncaa_get_rankings or ncaa_get_stats, no prerequisites, and no exclusions — the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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