get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves standings but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as data format (e.g., JSON structure), potential rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid year/league inputs), or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get MLB standings') and succinctly covers key usage aspects (year/league or current season). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and scope.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error cases) and doesn't leverage sibling tool context to clarify differentiation. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at what the standings data includes, but it doesn't, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that 'year' and 'league' parameters can be used for historical data or omitted for the current season, and it clarifies that 'league' accepts 'AL/NL'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, it doesn't fully compensate by detailing parameter formats (e.g., year range, league codes beyond AL/NL) or default behaviors when parameters are null. This meets the baseline for minimal viability but lacks depth.

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's purpose: 'Get MLB standings for a specific year and league (AL/NL) or current season.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('MLB standings'), and scope (year/league or current season). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_league_leaders' or 'get_seasonal_statistics', which might also involve standings-related data.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'specific year and league (AL/NL) or current season,' suggesting when to use it for historical vs. current data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_league_leaders' for standings-related queries or 'get_team_profile' for team-specific info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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