openliga: Get table

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true', 'idempotentHint: true', and 'openWorldHint: true', fully describing the safety and behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of limits, pagination, or auth).

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and conveys the core purpose immediately.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-described parameters and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. The lack of output schema is compensated by the familiarity of standings tables, but a brief note on returned structure would improve completeness slightly.

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 descriptions for both 'season' and 'league_shortcut' already in the schema. The description only reinforces these params without adding new semantics, so the baseline score of 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 it retrieves the league table/standings for a specific league and season, using a specific verb and resource. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'espn_get_standings' or 'sportsdb_get_standings', though the 'openliga' namespace provides 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools include many other 'get_standings' variants from different sports APIs, and the description fails to specify that this is specific to openliga leagues.

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