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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the exact sort order, the fields in each entry (rank, team, score), and the unpublished-state access behavior with its error message. This is especially valuable since there is no output schema.

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, no filler. The core ranking and entry details are front-loaded, followed by the access/error condition. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells an agent what will be returned (rank, team, score), how it is ordered, and when it is accessible. For a single-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The only parameter, event_slug, is fully covered by the schema with a basic description. The tool description adds 'one event' but no additional format or syntax details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is 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?

Clearly identifies the resource (one event's leaderboard) and the specific behavior: submissions ranked by weighted judge score then vote count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_get and submission_list.

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?

Provides clear access-context guidance: public after winners are published, admins/judges can preview pre-publication, and others receive a specific error. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the access timing and role guidance make appropriate usage clear.

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