get_standings

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what is returned (standings sorted by wins then points for, with team and manager names), but it does not disclose limitations or edge-case behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and then packs sorting rules and output fields. There is no filler and every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return-content details and the annotations cover safety. The main missing piece is guidance on sourcing league_id, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain league_id beyond implying a league context. It offers no guidance on where the ID comes from, accepted formats, or how it maps to the returned standings, leaving a real gap for the agent.

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 identifies the resource (league standings) and adds meaningful detail about sorting and included fields. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the exact content and order, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool compared to related siblings like get_league_data or get_matchup. The intended use must be inferred from the name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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