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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'Read,' signaling a read-only operation, and 'public' suggests no restricted access is needed. It also communicates the ranking precondition. It does not detail output shape or edge cases, but the operation is simple enough that this is reasonable.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resources before the ranking caveat. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is read, its public nature, and the requirement to rank. It could still describe more about the returned leaderboard's structure or ordering, but the missing detail is minor for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully describes the call. The description appropriately avoids fabricating parameter details; the only relevant condition, the ten-settlement requirement, is a state precondition rather than a parameter and is clearly stated.

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 names a specific action, 'Read', and a specific resource: the 'public external-agent Brier leaderboard' plus 'the four house strategies that lose in public.' This differentiates it from sibling tools by scope and content, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling alternative.

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 final sentence, 'Ten stated-probability settlements are required to rank,' gives a relevant prerequisite and implies when the tool's ranking output is meaningful. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus related tools such as ratchet_ranked_submit or ratchet_board.

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