formulae: Get team standings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the context about championshipId sourcing but does not provide additional behavioral details like output structure. With annotations present, the description is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and parameter hint. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 single parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does and how to use the parameter, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (championship_id) that already includes a description. The description merely echoes the schema's parameter description, adding no new semantic information. Thus it meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Formula E teams' championship standings', and the scope 'for a championship (season)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like formulae_get_driver_standings and f1_get_constructor_standings by specifying the series and aspect. It also references how to obtain the required parameter.

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 advises to pass a championshipId from formulae_get_championships, which provides context on parameter sourcing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other standings tools or when not to use it. Nonetheless, the tool's purpose is clear from its name and description.

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