League table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the output includes 'last-5 form' which implies some computational aggregation, but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, caching behavior, or if it requires authentication. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 sentence with key details front-loaded (standings, points, W/D/L, goals, goal difference, last-5 form). It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could benefit from a slight structural break (e.g., separating what vs. how) for easier parsing.

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 has only 2 parameters (both well-documented in schema), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the main output fields adequately. It omits mention of pagination or sorting order (implicitly by position), but for a simple standings tool this is acceptable.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'league season' which maps to the season parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool returns 'Current standings for a league season' and specifies the exact fields included: position, points, W/D/L, goals, goal difference, last-5 form. This makes the verb (get) and resource (league table) very specific, and the listed fields differentiate it from siblings like get_rankings or get_results.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving standings for a specific league and season, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_rankings or get_results. There is no guidance on exclusions (e.g., when to use get_rankings for league-wide stats instead), nor prerequisites beyond the league key hint.

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