ncaa_get_standings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the basic functionality without mentioning any behavioral aspects like data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its parameters.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function and key parameters. It is concise and front-loaded, earning its place with no extraneous information. However, it is slightly terse and could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, required year, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of teams with records, rankings) or any default behavior when optional parameters are omitted. Without an output schema, the agent lacks critical information about the response structure.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters. The description merely restates that sport and division are used, optionally with a year, adding no new semantic meaning. Since the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding, the score remains 3.

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 NCAA standings for a sport and division, with an optional year filter. It is specific enough to distinguish from other standings tools like espn_get_standings or mlb_get_standings. However, it does not elaborate on what the standings data contains (e.g., team records, rankings), which could further clarify the purpose.

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, such as other sports standings tools (e.g., espn_get_standings) or other NCAA tools. There are no prerequisites, caveats, or examples of appropriate use cases, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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