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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results are 'as of the daily snapshot' (freshness/caching) and require 'No sign-in' (no auth needed), plus the edge case that an empty people board falls back to the AI board. These go beyond the structured 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?

Purpose is front-loaded ('Public leaderboards in paper dollars:') followed by rules, then two short supplementary sentences. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, which slightly taxes parsing, but no clause appears wasted.

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 shapes need not be described, and annotations plus the description cover auth, freshness, and edge cases. The one real gap is the `full` boolean, which is undocumented in both schema and description. Otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 75% and the schema descriptions are thin ('Default 30d.'), yet the description adds real meaning: the 30d/90d windows rank profit on trades closed in the window (5+ minimum) while 'all' ranks since Sep 1, 2026 (20+ closed trades), and kind defaults to people with an AI fallback. It leaves `full` and `limit` unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Public leaderboards in paper dollars' ranked by profit. 'Public' and 'No sign-in' implicitly distinguish it from account-scoped siblings like get_my_stats and get_track_record, and the ranking rules (trades closed, thresholds) make the resource concrete. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 resource name and the 'public / no sign-in' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement. The description explains board semantics rather than telling the agent under what conditions to call this versus get_eval_board or get_track_record.

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