Get MFL league standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the markdown layout is one table per division ranked within division followed by the overall table, and that extra league-tracked columns may appear. Return-format behavior like this is exactly the value-add expected when annotations carry the rest.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the non-obvious division-table behavior, then a compact Args list. No filler sentences, though the Args block partially duplicates the fully-described schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it names the stat columns and explains the per-division versus overall markdown structure. With all three parameters optional and fully schema-documented, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including the league alias/name/ID options and the season default. The Args block mostly restates that plus the response_format enum values, adding a pointer to mfl_list_leagues but little semantic detail the schema lacks. Baseline 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Get league standings') and enumerates exactly which metrics come back (head-to-head record, points for/against, division record, streak, extra columns). An agent knows what it will receive, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potentially overlapping siblings like mfl_get_live_scoring or mfl_get_league.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use signal: for division standings questions, this single tool suffices because markdown emits one table per division plus an overall table. It also routes the agent to mfl_list_leagues for league/season arguments. What's missing is any explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., live/in-progress scoring).

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