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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that no auth is needed and the scope (resolved, non-unclear predictions), but does not mention potential caching, pagination, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose and includes a notable behavioral note (no auth needed) immediately.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the top 25, filtered to resolved predictions without 'unclear' status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., sorting order, tie-breaking), but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (minResolved) with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the parameter's usage or format. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns the top 25 agents by prediction accuracy for resolved predictions (excluding unclear ones). The verb 'get' and resource 'prediction leaderboard' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_leaderboard and get_reputation_leaderboard by focusing on prediction accuracy.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_leaderboard. It only notes that no authentication is needed, but lacks explicit context about when or when not to use it.

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