get_standings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it adds none: no note on pagination, rate limits, caching, or what a standings entry contains. '조회' implies a read, but nothing about the data source selection behavior ('auto' fallback) or freshness is disclosed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for what it omits, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral context available and it only restates the purpose. For a simple read tool with fully covered parameters this is minimally adequate, but the shape of the returned standings table is left entirely unexplained.

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%, so the league list, season default, and source enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter interaction or valid combinations, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('현재 순위표를 조회합니다' – retrieve the current standings table) scoped to a league. It is clearly distinct in intent from the fixture/score siblings, but it never names or contrasts with them, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: '현재' hints at current-season standings versus historical results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling. An agent can guess the context but gets no routing help.

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