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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the board taxonomy; it does not mention default windowing behaviour, that non-default seasons may be unavailable, or anything else beyond the schema. Adequate but adds little beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its variants. The closing question is a slightly unusual framing device but functions as a concrete usage cue rather than filler, so there is very little fat.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and rich annotations carry the behavioural load, so the definition is close to sufficient for a simple read tool. It still omits any routing hint among the many sibling read tools and any note on which board an agent should default to when the user's question is ambiguous.

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 baseline is 3. The phrase "by PnL, ROI or volume" does echo the sort enum and "the season's" ties to season_id, but no extra meaning (units, tie-breaking, behaviour when a filter is invalid for the chosen board) is added beyond what the schema states.

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 the resource (leaderboard) and its two concrete variants (season points, trading by PnL/ROI/volume), so an agent knows exactly what data it returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-neighbours like get_points or get_season, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 example question "Who leads the season?" gives an implicit usage trigger, and naming the two board types hints at which case selects which. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_points or get_season instead, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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