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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context beyond that: ranking tie-break, reported metrics, authentication nuance for mine=true, and the REST twin endpoint. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, so it stops short of fully rich 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 front-loaded with the leaderboard concept and its metrics, then covers filters and endpoint details. It is dense but efficient; the fragment 'No key.' is slightly terse but still informative.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough return-shape detail (won $ and ET10, wins, average ROI, tables played, ranking, house strategy as one row) and filter/auth context for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces their meaning and defaults but does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the resource and scope: a leaderboard of every bot that ever sat at a table, with the metrics it reports and the ranking order. It is distinct from sibling tournament tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself with them.

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?

It gives useful context for the two optional filters, defaults, and the key requirement for mine=true, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools like agent_tournament_table or agent_tournaments_open_tables. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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