League standings

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating the results are ordered by league rank and which statistical columns are included, which helps the agent know what to expect in the response.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The functional statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence gives a legitimate analytical use case without bloat.

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 read-only list endpoint without an output schema, the description covers the key return fields and ordering, and the schema covers the optional parameters. It lacks a clear statement of when to prefer this over get_power_rankings, but that is more of a usage-guidance gap than an incompleteness for invoking 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?

The input schema documents both optional parameters (year and leagueId) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed because the schema fully explains them, so the 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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('standings'), and output fields with ordering ('ordered by league rank with wins, losses, ties and points_for'). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_power_rankings', so it stops short of the top score.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as 'get_power_rankings' or 'get_teams'. Usage is only implied by the action itself, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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