get_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the table is ordered as the league publishes them, but otherwise does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 extremely concise with a clear intro and bullet-point Args. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description correctly focuses on input parameters and high-level output. It adequately covers the tool's behavior for three required parameters and is complete for the task.

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 description provides detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'event_id: Numeric event ID (e.g. 3933)') where the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). This adds essential meaning for correct invocation.

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 begins with 'Get the standings table for a flight,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_brackets, get_results, and get_rpi by specifying it returns standings data.

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?

It explicitly tells users to get division and flight IDs from get_event_overview, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies distinctions.

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