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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states that the tool is free, returns specific fields per run, and is a seeded deterministic simulation, which tells the agent the call is non-mutating and repeatable. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the free and read-only nature is well conveyed.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what the board is, that it is free, what fields are returned, and that the simulation is deterministic. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter, the description is complete. It names the source, content, and output fields, and the presence of an output schema covers the return structure. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parametersable, so the description cannot add parameter-level semantics. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output fields instead.

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 verb and resource: getting the top 20 STARSHIP TO MARS score-attack runs on AIARENA. It includes the URL and the exact type of data returned, which clearly separates it from the other aiarena and get_* sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: this is a free, zero-parameter retrieval of a specific leaderboard. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple getter with no inputs, the context is sufficient to know when to use it.

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