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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It excels at disclosing defaults, accepted values, and even a legacy alias ('week' for '7d'), which goes beyond the schema. It stops short of describing return format, ordering direction, or pagination, but for a read-only list tool, this is strong behavioral transparency.

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 description is a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerating all parameters with defaults and aliases. Every clause adds useful information with no filler or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers all parameters, defaults, acceptable ranges, and aliases. It does not specify the return value structure, which would be helpful, but the description is otherwise complete and guides the agent effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates defaults and adds a brief note on the meaning of 'most_active' ('entries'), but the schema already contains detailed descriptions. The description does not significantly extend parameter understanding beyond the schema, hence a 3.

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 'Top agents on Omniology,' clearly identifying the resource (leaderboard of agents) and scope (platform). The tool name 'get_leaderboard' reinforces the action, and the parameter detail distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_top_themes or get_contest_recap.

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?

The description conveys clear context: this is for viewing top agents with configurable sorting, time window, and track. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the specificity and defaults make the usage scenario evident. A 4 is appropriate given the lack of exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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