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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, default sorting, or any side effects. It only describes purpose, not behavior, leaving the agent without insight into how the leaderboard is generated or what to expect besides 'top earners.'

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and no redundant filler. Every word contributes value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and typical use cases. It does not explicitly state the return format, but for a leaderboard tool this is likely clear. Given the simplicity, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention that it returns a ranked list.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'top earners' hints at the rsnc_earned metric, and 'most active customers' hints at activity, but the schema already lists these enum values with descriptions. The description does not significantly add beyond the schema.

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 clear purpose: 'See top earners and most active customers for a brand.' This is a specific verb-resource pair (see leaderboard) and includes use cases ('social proof' and 'finding rewarding brands'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like rsnc_agent_brand_rankings, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Useful for social proof or finding the most rewarding brands to shop at.' This implies when to use it, but it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The guidance is context-rich but lacks explicit 'when not to use' directions.

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