esports-lol-team-standings

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds no additional context beyond the basic purpose, such as rate limits or response format, but does not contradict the annotations, earning a baseline score for minimal added value.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simple input schema (one parameter with full coverage), annotations covering safety and scope, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on return values or behavioral nuances, making it complete enough for basic use but not rich in context.

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%, with the parameter 'shortName' fully documented in the schema, including an enum list. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining league selection nuances, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra compensation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('team standings for a LoL league'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'esports-lol-schedules' or 'lol-champion-leader-board', which might also involve league data but serve different purposes.

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 how it differs from 'lol-champion-leader-board' or other sibling tools. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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