Standings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a single competition may yield several group tables — but says nothing about ordering, tie-breakers, or what a table contains.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and following with the multi-group caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than economy.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say more about the shape of a standings table (positions, points, columns) instead of only noting that multiple groups exist.

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% and the single 'competition' parameter already documents both accepted forms (slug or URL) with an example. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (league table/standings) scoped to a competition, which is clearly distinct from sibling tools that list competitions, teams, or matches. The retrieval verb is only implied by the name, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want a table for a given competition. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a related tool such as get_competition_matches for results data.

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