Get league standings

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds value by listing specific data points returned (rank, win/loss, games back, etc.), which helps the agent understand the output. It does not contradict annotations.

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 succinct sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output data. The second sentence provides usage comparison. No fluff or redundancy; every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the output contents (standings data fields) and directs to the correct alternative for more detailed data. No gaps remain.

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% (both teamKeys and leagueKey have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add further parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it retrieves 'the league standings table' and lists specific data fields (rank, win/loss, games back, playoff seed, season category totals). It distinguishes from sibling tool get_teams by framing itself as 'the light way' and directing users to the alternative when they need full matchup history.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('to see how teams stack up') and when to use the alternative ('use get_teams when you also need every team's full matchup history'), providing explicit guidance on tool selection.

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