motogp: Get standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds value by clarifying the returned data includes riders' or constructors' points tables, providing behavioral context beyond 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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently state purpose and usage. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 ideally describe the result format. It mentions 'riders' or constructors' points table' but does not detail fields. However, for a standings tool with clear parameters and safety annotations, this is mostly adequate.

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%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema stating their source (e.g., 'Season UUID from motogp_get_seasons'). The tool description redundantly says 'Pass seasonUuid and categoryUuid' but adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 retrieves championship standings for a season and category, specifying both riders' and constructors' tables. It uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like motogp_get_riders or motogp_get_events.

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 instructs the user to pass seasonUuid and categoryUuid, referencing where to obtain them (implicitly from motogp_get_seasons and motogp_get_categories). It provides clear context for use, though it could more explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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