sofascore_standings

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns data from a credential-free public JSON, indicating it is a safe read operation. No mention of rate limits or pagination, but the behavioral trait is clear. The description adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, enum details, parameter sourcing. The structure is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple tool with three required parameters and no output schema or nested objects, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (league table), how to use parameters, and data source. An agent can successfully invoke this tool with the given information.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds significant meaning by listing the enum values for 'type' (total, home, away) and explaining how to obtain 'id' and 'season' from other tools, which the schema does not cover.

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 it returns a league table (standings) for a competition season from SofaScore's public JSON. It differentiates from sibling tools like sofascore_event, sofascore_team, etc., by being specifically for standings. The source and credential-free access are noted, providing clear purpose.

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 tells when to use (to get standings) and provides specific guidance on obtaining parameters ('Get id from search and season from tournament-seasons'). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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