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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds useful context: the ranking basis (upvotes) and the week's closing time, which informs expected data freshness. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the default behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters, no output schema). The description covers the purpose, ranking basis, and default week behavior. It does not specify the return format, but given no output schema and the simplicity, it is reasonably complete. Minor gap: no mention of limit's effect on results, but that's inferable.

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 50% (week has a description, limit does not). The description adds context for the week parameter by explaining the default live week, but does not elaborate on the limit parameter or its meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is moderate, the description could compensate more, but it partially does.

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 states a specific action (get ranked products), the resource (products for one ISO week), and the ranking basis (community upvotes). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_product (single product) and get_winners (likely a different selection), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clarifies the default behavior (live week, closing Sunday 23:59 UTC) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context implies weekly leaderboard use, but no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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