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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the board is public, limited to top 20, and ranked by sub-book equity (cash + live marks). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the tool returns.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose (tournament board for one competition), then adds the ranking criteria and scope (top 20, public). Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (ranked entrants, top 20) and the key metric. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact output format (e.g., fields per entrant), but with no output schema and a simple list, this is acceptable.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds a small but useful detail: the competition_id comes from list_competitions, which is already in the schema. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage and a single simple parameter, the baseline is 3 and the extra context about the source of the ID justifies a 4.

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 tool's purpose: it returns a tournament board for a specific competition, with entrants ranked by sub-book equity (cash + live marks), limited to the top 20. It names the specific resource (competition leaderboard) and the key metric (sub-book equity), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_portfolio or list_competitions.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the leaderboard for a specific competition, identified by competition_id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list and the parameter description referencing list_competitions.

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