League statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world read behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the default result shape is top-3 boxes per category unless the ranking parameter is set, and it points to v3_league as the source of league_id/season_id. It does not discuss pagination, volume of ranked results, or season defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 short blocks with the concrete capability stated first and routing guidance second; every sentence carries information. Slightly loose formatting (the mid-sentence line break) and the parenthetical metric list is longer than strictly needed, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so by enumerating the statistical categories and explaining the top-3 default versus full ranking. Combined with a fully documented 3-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact response shape per category is unspecified.

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% — ranking, league_id, and season_id are all documented in the schema, including the enum values and the top-3-vs-full-ranking distinction. The description reinforces the ranking semantics and lists the categories, but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Get a football league's season statistics") and enumerates the concrete outputs: goals per match, cards per match, goal timing, streak notes, team rankings. It also names the sibling it is not (v3_top_players), so an agent can distinguish it from the player-oriented tools without opening schemas.

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?

Provides concrete natural-language query examples ("most clean sheets", "how many goals per match in the Iranian league") that map user intent to this tool, plus an explicit fallback rule: without ranking you get the top 3 in each category. The only gap is that it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling v3_standings (league table) or v3_league_matches, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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