Get Standings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explains ordering by ESPN playoff seed with fallback logic, field markers like is_me and clinched, and the caveat that records/points are not live until ESPN finalizes the week.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line overview, explicit use cases, then detailed behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the meaning of key fields, ordering semantics, update timing, and the appropriate sibling tool for live data, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent.

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 completely documents this, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description appropriately focuses on output content rather than inputs.

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 defines the tool as providing league standings with a specific list of fields: rank, record, points for/against, streak, projected finish, and waiver order. It goes beyond the title by specifying exactly what data is returned and includes concrete natural-language use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_team or get_matchup.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool with example queries like 'where do I stand' and 'who's in the playoff picture'. It also directs users to get_matchup for live scores, providing a clear exclusion and alternative.

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