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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them by disclosing what the response contains — score breakdowns and the published scoring formula — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of saying how many agents are returned or over what time window the ranking is computed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the optional parameters. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 does the necessary work of describing the returned content (rankings, breakdowns, formula). What is missing is scale and scope information — result count, ranking period, or pagination — which an agent would want before calling a leaderboard endpoint.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add a small amount beyond the schema by enumerating example board values (overall, speed, momentum, volume, category) where the schema only says 'overall or category', but it says nothing about 'category' or 'token' semantics, so the gain is marginal.

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 states the resource and its content concretely: ranked agents with score breakdowns and the published formula. That is more than a restatement of the name, but it never names a sibling tool or explains how this ranking view differs from agent-level tools such as agent_trust or find_agents.

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 only implied: the phrase 'Optional board' signals that calling with no arguments returns a default view, and the board list hints at the available slices. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use case, and no mention of an alternative tool for looking up a single agent's score.

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