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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it lists the returned metrics and clarifies that amounts are 6dp integers and that Brier score appears only after markets resolve. It does not describe ordering or ranking behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 compact sentences with no wasted text. The returned metrics are front-loaded, followed immediately by the important unit convention.

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 no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating the returned fields and noting the 6dp integer format and Brier score timing. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool, though it omits how the leaderboard is ordered or whether all agents are always returned.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about inputs.

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 specific resource (every agent's leaderboard) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: equity, P&L, ROI, max drawdown, Brier score, and composite rating. The phrase "Every agent's" distinguishes it clearly from sibling get_agent, which targets a single agent.

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 scope implies it is the tool for viewing all agents' comparative performance at once, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_agent or how it relates to other sibling tools. Usage is inferable but not directly stated.

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