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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' scores, which implies a read operation, but does not clarify whether authentication is required, if scores are cached, or what the response format looks like. The existence of an output schema partly mitigates this, but the description contributes minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks important detail. While it front-loads the core action, the brevity comes at the cost of parameter explanation and usage context. The sentence earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. Parameter semantics are entirely missing. The presence of an output schema helps for return value understanding, but the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 0%, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (game_id, board, limit). The agent must infer that board defaults to 'main' and limit to 10 from the schema defaults, but the purpose of each parameter (e.g., what 'board' represents) is not explained. This is a significant gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('leaderboard scores for a game'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arcade_board_read which might return board content. However, it could be more precise, e.g., 'Retrieve the top scores for a specific arcade game.'

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcade_board_read or arcade_board_post. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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