ncaa: Get rankings

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It does not disclose any special traits such as data source freshness, rate limits, or response structure. With annotations present, the description fails to add additional context.

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 that front-loads the key action and resource. It is not verbose, but it could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output looks like, how to combine parameters like week and year, or how to interpret poll values. This leaves an agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond saying 'for a sport,' which is already captured by the required 'sport' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' and the resource 'NCAA rankings/polls' and includes examples (AP, Coaches, CFP) and the sport parameter. It distinctly separates this tool from sibling tools like ncaa_get_game or ncaa_get_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 use when rankings are needed and mentions the sport parameter, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling sports tools.

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