get_standings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the return shape (eight-team table, ordered by points, with specific statistics) and notes 'current', indicating dynamic data that aligns with openWorldHint. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the primary action and then detailing the return format without redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, making it appropriately concise.

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 simple tool (no params, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the purpose and output specifics, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The output schema would handle return structure details, so the description need not repeat them.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific details (as none exist), but it enriches the overall understanding of the tool's output, which is sufficient given the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 states 'Get the current Premier League standings' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_teams and get_scoreboard by focusing on standings data. It also specifies the eight-team table format, adding clarity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve current standings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity makes its intended use obvious. A slight improvement would be naming contrasting tools, but it's not necessary here.

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