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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context with 'GET ONLY ... field', telling the agent the response is a partial read rather than the full configuration. It stops short of describing return format or field-level defaults, so not 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?

The scoping constraint and the resource contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative tool is named last. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the title or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the Leaderboard field contains, partially compensating for the missing return documentation. It is close to complete for a single-parameter read tool, though it does not describe the response envelope or error/auth cases.

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% with a single required title_id, so the schema already carries parameter documentation. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource combination ('GET ONLY the Leaderboard field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel') and enumerates the field's contents (name, ranking metric, reset cadence, rewards, eligibility). This clearly separates it from save_leaderboard and from the other get_* config readers.

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?

Explicitly scopes the use case ('pure player-vs-player ranking') and routes the agent to a named alternative for the contrasting case ('For collaborative team goals use CoopEvent'). The agent does not have to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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