League table

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantive return-shape detail on top: one table per group for group competitions, bracket output for cups, form as the last five results with oldest-first ordering and the latest match last, zones naming, and the volleyball-specific set/point columns. Since no output schema exists, this is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the description must carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by trigger phrases and then mode-specific caveats — a sensible order. There is mild redundancy between 'group tables' in the first sentence and the dedicated group sentence, plus an awkward line break mid-sentence, but 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?

For a four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, both stage modes, multi-group competitions, form encoding and ordering, zone labels, and sport-specific column variants. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response without further discovery.

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 both enums are already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces stage="knockout" for cups and explains the group-table behavior tied to stage, but adds little about sport or season_id beyond what the schema states (season defaults to current, sport defaults to football).

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 verb and resource (get the table of a league) and enumerates the returned fields (rank, played, won, drawn, lost, goals, points, form), so the agent knows exactly what this produces versus fixtures-oriented siblings like v3_league_matches. It also distinguishes the two output modes (group tables, cup bracket), which makes it unambiguous against other v3_league_* tools.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('league table', 'who is top', 'how many points has X') and routes cups to stage="knockout", which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., v3_league_matches for fixtures or v3_league_stats for aggregate stats) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context but not full routing logic.

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