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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the result is a bounded top-N slice (10-100) with three specific fields, but says nothing about ordering, tie handling, or behavior when the campaign has fewer than 10 subscribers.

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, zero padding, with the payload contents front-loaded and the endpoint appended as a compact identifier. Nothing to trim.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably: it enumerates the returned fields and the size bound. It falls short only on ordering of the ranking and small-campaign edge cases, which are minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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 both uuid and count are already documented in the schema, including the 10-100 bounds and default. The description only restates the count range, adding no format or semantics the schema lacks. 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?

States a specific resource (campaign leaderboard) and specifies exactly what it contains: top subscribers with referral counts, points and position, plus the range 10-100. It's clear this is a ranking view rather than the flat roster returned by referralhero_list_subscribers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the content: you call this when you want a ranked top-N view for a campaign rather than a full subscriber list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to referralhero_list_subscribers or referralhero_get_subscriber for other lookups.

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