sportsrc: Get table

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds minimal context ('for a specific football league') but no further behavioral details such as pagination, caching, or data freshness. It does not contradict 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, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and maximally concise, earning its place with no waste.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify whether the standings are for the current season or if a season parameter is implied. This missing seasonal context could lead to incomplete agent decisions.

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?

The sole parameter 'league' has a helpful description referencing the sibling tool sportsrc_get_leagues for listing league IDs and providing examples like 'PL', 'CL', 'BL1'. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds practical usage context beyond the schema type.

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 a standings table for a football league. It is specific and matches the name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other sibling tools that also deal with league data, though no other 'table' tool exists among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use. The description simply restates the purpose without offering decision-making cues.

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