get_grouped_standings_by_round_id

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any special behavior, missing an opportunity to add value.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the key 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'grouped standings' means, the return format, or the purpose of optional parameters like 'include' and 'filters'.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'grouped standings', with the specific parameter 'round ID'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_standings_by_round_id' by using 'grouped'.

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 use for group stage standings via the example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_standings_by_round_id'. No exclusions or context provided.

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