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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only, no pagination or size expectations, no note on whether results are scoped to today only or whether historical data is reachable via the dia parameter.

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 core statement is front-loaded and short, but the entire sentence is then repeated verbatim in Spanish, roughly doubling length with zero informational gain for an agent that reads either language. The phrase 'with humans alongside' is also vague about what that means in the payload.

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 trivial one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is close to sufficient, but the absence of annotations and of any note about what the leaderboard contains or whether it requires prior registration leaves an agent guessing about invocation conditions.

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 single optional 'dia' parameter (challenge number, default today) is already fully documented. The description adds no meaning beyond that — baseline 3 applies.

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 resource — today's leaderboard — and clarifies its two breakdowns (by agent, by model) plus that humans are included. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like corruptopolis_informe (a report) or corruptopolis_entrar (joining), but it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus corruptopolis_informe or the other siblings, and no stated preconditions (e.g., whether you must have joined via entrar first). Usage is only implied by the word 'leaderboard'.

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