squiggle: Get standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns actual (rather than predicted) standings and lists the fields, but it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or other operational traits.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical list of returned statistics is compact and useful.

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 tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not differentiate itself from the very similar squiggle_get_ladder sibling.

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 schema already documents 'year', 'round', and 'fields' fully, including the default for round. The description adds only the high-level phrase 'for a year and round' and no extra syntax or meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AFL ladder/standings') and even lists the returned statistics (wins, losses, draws, points, percentage). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similar sibling squiggle_get_ladder.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as squiggle_get_ladder, squiggle_get_tips, or the many other standings tools. The phrase 'for a year and round' gives parameter context but does not qualify the tool's selection.

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