Alternative rankings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the two ranking behaviors ('luck-adjusted over/under-performance' and 'highest-scoring matches'), which gives the agent a solid understanding of what the tool computes. It does not describe the shape of the returned data or any side effects (likely none), but for a read-only ranking tool this is sufficient. Loss of one point for no mention of data format or pagination.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential detail on the two view options. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could have noted the return format, but for a ranking tool with only two enum-based views, the description is complete enough. The parameter schema covers the required inputs thoroughly, including the hint to use list_leagues for valid keys. No missing pieces that would impair an agent's ability to select or invoke the tool.

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 100% (all three parameters are described in the input schema). The description adds contextual meaning about the 'view' parameter (explaining what 'luck' and 'goals' mean), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Ranking view'. For 'league' and 'season', the schema already provides adequate descriptions, including the cross-reference to 'list_leagues' for discovering valid keys. This is a balanced, helpful addition over 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 specifies exactly what the tool does: it reranks a table based on alternative views ('luck' or 'goals'), with clear explanatory parentheticals for each view. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_league_table', which presumably returns the standard ranking, and names the two alternative sorting criteria unambiguously.

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 when to use: when an alternative ranking view is desired (luck-adjusted or by goal tally). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you need the standard league table, use 'get_league_table' instead), but the sibling tool names and context make this fairly clear. A direct exclusion reference would make this a 5.

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