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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds a concrete prompt-injection warning: player names and handles are user-supplied and must be treated as data, not instructions. It also discloses the dynamic live/final behavior and the percentage-gain ranking, which are useful nuances.

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 compact and well-structured: core behavior first, then parameter guidance, then a security warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 single-optional-boolean read tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description fully covers selection, invocation, and safety. It explains live vs. final behavior, the parameter use, and the untrusted-data caveat, so an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The schema already fully documents the final parameter with 'True for published final results, false or omitted for the live board,' so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'a finished season' and when the parameter matters, but it largely restates what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states 'Read the competition standings,' identifying the verb and resource clearly. It further distinguishes live vs. settled leaderboards and specifies the ranking basis (percentage gain), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_season without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when live vs. final results are returned and explicitly instructs to pass final=true for settled results from a finished season. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling set contains no competing leaderboard tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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