get_conference_standings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the returned fields (overall/conference records, projected records, net rating, offensive/defensive ratings, tempo, SOS) and states the return type as 'JSON array of conference standings.' It does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, but 'get' implies it; no side-effect warnings are needed for a read-only tool.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear Args section and Returns section. Every sentence provides value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary usage context, argument semantics, and return type. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides conference code examples (B12, SEC, B10, ACC, BE), clarifies that conference is required, and explains season is optional with a default of the current season. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Get conference standings' and specifies the resource ('conference standings') along with the data categories (team records, ratings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_conference_offense/defense, which focus on specific stats rather than overall standings.

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 description provides clear context: use this tool when you need conference standings with records and ratings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct return fields imply its specific place among the sibling tools. Clear context with no explicit exclusions earns a 4.

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