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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the 20-scored-call eligibility threshold, hit-rate ordering, tie-breaking by total hits, and that ineligible speakers are listed separately. This is useful context beyond the annotations. It lacks detail on pagination or return format, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the leaderboard identity and the ranking rule with no filler. It is efficient, though the ranking clause is compact enough that an agent may need to parse carefully.

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, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description covers the ranking logic, eligibility rule, and separate-group behavior, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter, but overall it is nearly complete.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its default of 10, or its max of 20. With coverage below 50%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter's semantics undocumented anywhere except the raw type/default/maximum.

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 names the specific resource (ATC calls leaderboard) and the exact ranking rule (min 20 scored calls, ranked by hit rate, ties by total hits). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like speaker_calls or asset_calls by describing the aggregate leaderboard output. It stops just short of a 5 because it never explicitly states the returned shape (ranked list plus separate group of under-threshold speakers).

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 nature of a leaderboard, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of an alternative such as speaker_profile for a single speaker's stats. The agent can infer it belongs to aggregate rankings but must reason about when to prefer it over per-speaker tools.

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