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 by structured data. The description adds useful row-level detail (name, type, scoreOrder, decimals, isActive, read-only score-protection settings) but says nothing about ordering, completeness of the result set, or how many leaderboards come back.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the row-shape detail an agent needs given there is no output schema. The second sentence is dense and chains several clauses, but no sentence is padding.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gap by enumerating the fields returned in each row, which is exactly what an agent cannot get from the input schema or annotations. Missing pagination/ordering notes are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter applicationId is already documented as "Game id from list_applications", so the baseline is 3. The description's `id` discussion actually refers to a response row field rather than the input parameter, which risks momentary ambiguity about whether `id` is something the caller supplies.

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 opens with a clear resource statement ("The leaderboards of a game") and implicitly distinguishes itself from update_leaderboard by noting that tool consumes the same `id`. It lacks an explicit verb like "list" and never contrasts with create_leaderboard, so the sibling differentiation is partial rather than exhaustive.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus siblings such as create_leaderboard or update_leaderboard, and no prerequisites beyond the implied applicationId lookup. The only guidance is incidental: the mention that `update_leaderboard` takes the same `id` hints at a workflow but never says to use this tool first.

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