Get league standings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it returns a standings table, with no details on read-only nature, data structure, pagination, or potential errors. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope, achieving high conciseness.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention what the standings table contains (e.g., points, ranks) or ordering, leaving some ambiguity. However, the concept of 'standings' is common enough that an agent may infer it; a bit more detail would raise the score.

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%, as both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds the notion that season is optional, but that is already evident from the schema (season not required). Thus, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 it returns a standings table for a competition, optionally filtered by season. It specifies the resource (standings) and scope (one competition), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'matches' or 'search,' which is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as footballstack_matches or footballstack_search. The description implies its use for standings data, but does not mention exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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