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

The annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds the season scope and category dimension, but does not clarify ranking direction, pagination behavior, or the shape of returned player data.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. It conveys the core categories and season scope without wasting words.

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 three-parameter retrieval tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it: league scope, season, and leader categories. It could be richer about returned fields or ranking behavior, but those gaps are minor 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 description maps naturally to the category parameter by naming scorers, assists, and cards, while the schema already documents category defaults and the limit bounds. The required league_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the description adds only partial parameter meaning.

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 as league leaders and names the categories: top scorers, assist leaders, and most-carded players. It is specific enough to distinguish this from a general player search, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_players.

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 implied by the phrase 'of a league this season' and the leaderboard categories, so an agent can infer this is for ranked league statistics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of when to prefer find_players or get_player instead.

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