mlb: Get standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint as true. The description adds that the tool returns win/loss records, division ranks, and streaks, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the 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 a single, concise sentence of 12 words, with no filler. It front-loads the key action and result. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the output details.

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 has no output schema, so the description should hint at return structure. It names three data categories (win/loss, division ranks, streaks), which is helpful. Given the simplicity of the tool (3 optional parameters, no required fields), the description is reasonably complete, though more explicit structure would be ideal.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all three parameters (season, leagueId, standingsTypes). The description merely lists the output content (win/loss, division ranks, streaks) without adding meaning to the parameters themselves. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose: 'Get league standings with win/loss records, division ranks, and streaks.' It specifies the resource (standings) and the verb (get), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover other sports by explicitly mentioning MLB context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like espn_get_standings or nhl_get_standings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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