standings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not read-only nature, not whether results are cached or live, not pagination, not what happens for an invalid league or season. Two words cannot convey any behavioral trait beyond the resource name.

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?

While trivially short, brevity here is under-specification rather than concision; there is no structure, no front-loaded information, and no sentence that adds value. Two words do not earn their place as a definition.

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?

The tool is simple (two required integer params, no output schema), but the description still omits everything an agent would want: the shape of the standings returned and the domain meaning of league ids. Completeness is inadequate even for a low-complexity tool.

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%; both league ("League id") and season ("Season year, e.g. 2024") are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

"League standings" merely restates the tool name as a noun phrase; it gives no verb, scope, or distinguishing detail. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it returns a ranked table, a snapshot, or a season summary, nor how it differs from siblings such as team_stats or live_scores.

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 at all: no mention of live_scores, team_stats, or search_leagues as alternatives, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is a read-only lookup keyed by league and season.

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