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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real non-obvious behavior: legacy RETURN aliases PNL with null return-percentage fields and no calculated return, amounts may be unavailable, settledMarkets counts only confirmed non-void traded markets, and reputation tier is deliberately black-box. Pagination/window edge behavior is left to the schema, keeping this short of 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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the board is and then the sort-mode quirks in priority order. Every clause carries information, though the run-on style around legacy sorts and settledMarkets makes it harder to scan than a short list would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the description supplies the quirks an agent needs (aliases, null fields, legacy adapter, black-box tier). Pagination and period/collateral interaction remain unaddressed, which is the main residual gap for a 7-parameter read tool.

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?

With 71% schema coverage the description still adds meaning: sort alias/legacy rules and board-to-entity mapping, the settledMarkets counting semantics, and period window intent. It omits limit, offset, generation, and collateral guidance, which the schema partially carries, so it complements rather than fully compensates.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Ranked public leaderboard') and immediately enumerates the three distinct entity boards (traders via PNL/VOLUME, creators via CREATOR_QUALITY, voters via VOTERS), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can tell exactly what this returns and which sort values switch the resource type.

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?

Usage is implied by the sort-mode breakdown — pick RETURN/PNL/VOLUME for traders, CREATOR_QUALITY for creators, VOTERS for voters — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative. Sibling tools are all market/discovery oriented, so no routing conflict, but the description never says so.

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