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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior, and 'Get' signals a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose ordering, scope, or any limitations, leaving the behavioral picture thin but minimally acceptable for a simple read.

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 one front-loaded, filler-free sentence that directly states the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices parameter and usage detail in favor of brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need narrative explanation, and the resource is clearly a leaderboard read. But with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition lacks enough context around board and limit behavior to be more than merely adequate.

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%, so the prose should clarify board, limit, and game_id. The description only implies game_id with 'for a game' and provides no added meaning for board or limit beyond their obvious names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('leaderboard scores for a game'), so an agent can tell what the tool does at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like arcade_board_read, but the leaderboard focus is clear enough to avoid major confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcade_board_read or arcade_board_post, and it mentions no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and title alone.

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