get-team-rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral safety. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens if neither team_id nor event_id is supplied, whether season filters apply across both modes, or the shape of the response. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but lacks completeness.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and primary modes. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and all parameters optional, so the description must carry substantial contextual weight. It explains two modes but leaves critical ambiguity: what if no parameters are provided? Are team_id and event_id mutually exclusive? How does season interact with the other filters? These gaps make the description incomplete for safe, correct invocation.

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 already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that event_id retrieves rankings for all teams at an event and team_id retrieves historical rankings. However, the season parameter is not mentioned in the description, so the added value is partial.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get ranking information for VEX teams' and immediately specifies the two primary modes: 'for a specific event or a team's historical rankings.' This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-team-info or get-skills-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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use each mode ('for a specific event' vs 'a team's historical rankings') and implicitly differentiates from alternative ranking or score tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention the season filter as a third usage context, so it falls short of full guidance.

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