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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: paid launch tiers affect scheduling only and never rankings, and the live week closes Sunday 23:59 UTC — both are facts that change how an agent interprets results. Return shape and result count behavior are not described.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it is ordered, followed by the ranking-integrity caveat and the default-week rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, ranking integrity, and default behavior — enough to call it correctly. The only omission is any hint about the size/shape of the returned list beyond the implied 'limit', which is minor.

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 50%: 'week' is documented with a pattern and example, and the description adds useful defaults (live week) and the Sunday 23:59 UTC close. 'limit' has no description in either the schema or the description, so the description does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ranked products for one ISO week') plus the exact ordering rule ('ordered strictly by community upvotes'), which is more precise than the name/title. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_winners, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Defaults to the live week' note implies when the week parameter can be omitted, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_winners or get_launch_calendar, both of which plausibly return ranked or time-scoped product lists. Usage is only implied.

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