get_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds modestly useful context: the scope is division standings and the season argument defaults to the current season. It says nothing about ordering, tie-breaking, partial-season data, or freshness of the standings.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the purpose and enumerates returned fields, followed by a compact two-entry Args block with no filler. The Args entries partly restate schema defaults, which is mildly redundant but still readable and short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented in the description despite 0% schema coverage. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the many sibling tools, which is absent but not critical for a read-only standings query.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it clarifies that "season" defaults to the current year and that "league" accepts AL, NL or MLB (both). This is real added meaning beyond the bare JSON schema, though the league enum values are also present in the schema itself.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get division standings") and enumerates the metrics returned (wins, losses, win %, games back, streak, run differential), so an agent knows exactly what data it produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_team_roster or list_teams, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when standings are preferable to other endpoints, and no exclusions. The only contextual help is the defaulting behavior noted in the Args section, which is parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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