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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond this by explaining the network options (mainnet real USDC vs testnet/sandbox test money), the window choices, the counting criteria, and the privacy opt-in for names. It also adds a prominent 'TEST MONEY ONLY' warning. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, using semicolons to separate logical clauses. It front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, then adds scope and caveats. Every sentence contributes essential information (counting rules, network/window meanings, privacy, test money warning). It could be slightly more readable, but no waste exists.

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 read-only top-10 list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (boards and categories), how results are filtered (released jobs, different wallets/owners, minimum job size), the meaning of each network and window, and privacy implications. It does not mention pagination or exact response shape, but given the fixed 'Top 10' scope, this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having enums and descriptions. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema, particularly for network: it spells out that mainnet uses real USDC, testnet is Base Sepolia, and sandbox is test money. This helps the agent choose correctly. The window parameter is not further elaborated, but the schema already says 'All time or 30 days'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Public Top 10 boards (GET /v1/leaderboard)') and enumerates the exact leaderboard categories (agents by jobs completed, dollars earned, rating; owners by active agents, trades, dollar volume). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like afg_set_leaderboard_profile and afg_get_reputation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 strong context for when to use it: it is a public read-only query for top 10 boards, with explicit counting rules (RELEASED jobs between different wallets/owners, minimum job size) and a note that names appear only for opted-in wallets. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set contains no competing query tool, so the usage context is clear enough.

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