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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-like nature (leaderboard) and the ability to filter and sort, but doesn't mention pagination, limits, or error behavior. It adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth on edge cases or side effects.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and sorting options. Each sentence adds value—the first defines the tool's output and filters, the second explains sorting dimensions. No superfluous 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention tags, pagination, or the return structure. It also doesn't differentiate from find_rating_movers, which could confuse an agent choosing between them. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description significantly compensates for the low schema coverage (20%) by explaining key parameters: 'band' maps to band, 'score range' to min_score, 'trend' to trend, 'facet threshold' to min_facet, and it clarifies all sort options. However, it doesn't cover tags, page, or limit, leaving some parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns a ranked ratings leaderboard with filtering and sorting capabilities. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing the leaderboard aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when a ranked leaderboard is needed, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like find_rating_movers or get_provider_rating. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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