get_standings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the response format (separate numbered tables per conference), ordering (points descending), and included stats (W/L/T, goals for/against, differential). This provides transparency about output structure without contradicting 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief, useful elaboration on the response format. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description fully explains what the output will contain. It provides enough context for an agent to select this tool and understand the response, even without the output schema being shown.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the current MLS standings, grouped by conference.' It specifies the resource (MLS standings) and the organization (conference). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_teams and get_scoreboard by focusing on standings.

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 usage context: use when you need current standings with conference breakdown. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools. A slightly higher score is not warranted because it doesn't say 'use instead of X'.

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