fpl_get_league_standings

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds useful behavioral details: pagination support, error handling for missing league or invalid page, and response format options.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, args, returns, examples, error handling. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. Front-loaded with core function.

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 simplicity (reading standings with pagination), the description covers all key aspects: pagination, error cases, format options, and example usage. Output schema exists but description explains returns adequately.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (league_id, page, response_format). Description reiterates these and adds examples (e.g., usage with league_id=12345). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, but examples elevate it.

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 explicitly states 'Get standings for a specific Fantasy Premier League league.' and lists returned data (manager rankings, points, team names, rank changes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze and compare functions.

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?

Provides context on usage: supports pagination, how to find league ID from URL, and gives examples. Does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, but the purpose is clear and siblings are distinct.

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