nhl: Get standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no indication of whether a date returns a historical snapshot, whether season and date interact, or how missing seasons resolve. This is largely a restatement of the name plus a filter hint.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded before the optional filtering note. It is efficient, though it borders on terse given what it leaves unsaid.

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 three documented, all-optional parameters and no output schema, the agent still has no idea of the return shape or what a standings payload contains. For a simple read-only list tool this is minimally adequate, but the absence of an output schema means the description could have carried more.

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 the format details (YYYY-MM-DD, "20232024" season id, comma-separated fields) are all in the schema. The description names date and season but omits fields and adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (NHL standings), and the league qualifier separates it from the many other *_get_standings siblings. It does not clarify what the standings contain (conference/division/points) or how it differs from nhl_get_scores or nhl_get_team_stats, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Optionally filter by date or season" implies the filtering scenarios but is really parameter usage rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling standings tools or nhl_get_schedule, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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