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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful domain context that reports are published weekly and that the results are ids/weeks with summaries, which partly compensates for the missing output schema. It still says nothing about ordering, empty-archive behavior, or how summary text is truncated.

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 with no filler. The resource and archive scope come first, and the routing instruction follows, so the onward step is easy to find.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the archive contains, how report ids are used elsewhere, and how to fetch a full report. An agent can call this correctly without further information.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents 'limit' fully, including the max of 104 and default of 52. The description adds no extra meaning about that parameter, so the baseline of 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 (the archive of Polyrank weekly Skill Reports) and states the returned shape is a list of report ids/weeks with summaries, so an agent knows exactly what a call yields. It also distinguishes this listing tool from the full-fetch sibling by name.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use split: call this to browse the archive of report ids and weeks, and call polyrank_get_smart_money_report to fetch a single report in full. The alternative and the condition selecting it are stated outright.

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