4grand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful detail that results include freshness ('how fresh the results are'), which hints at data recency expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query or describe any caching/update behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the primary subject (current Grand Slam) is front-loaded. Slight clarity cost comes from the interrogative phrasing, but it remains tight and efficient.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys the main output concepts: tournament identity, match count, and freshness. It is adequate but does not specify the exact format or unit of freshness, and it misses a chance to explicitly differentiate itself from how_4grand_works.

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 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add to the input schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are trivially complete.

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 clearly states what the tool reports: the current Grand Slam, number of decided matches, and result freshness. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', and is phrased as questions, but the intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like public_pool_standings.

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 phrasing 'in progress right now' implies this tool is for current-state queries, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool delivers explanatory content rather than performing an action, but it does not mention return format, length, or whether it is purely read-only. The content topics are transparent, yet behavioral detail beyond those topics is minimal.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Call this first'). Every phrase adds value by enumerating the substantive topics covered, with 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, no-output-schema orientation tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent the exact sequence position and the full set of concepts the tool explains. No additional context about parameters or return values is needed.

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 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter information is needed and the description accurately indicates an unconditional call.

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 clearly states what the tool covers: an orientation to 4GRAND, the meaning of 'play for love', player costs, and scoring. It is not a tautology and conveys a definite purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with current_tournament or public_pool_standings beyond implying it should be called first.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit, actionable usage instruction that tells the agent when to invoke this tool before diving into tournament or standings data. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for a zero-parameter orientation tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It usefully reveals that only public pools are accessible and private/club pools will not work, but it does not describe the returned leaderboard structure, ordering, or any access prerequisites. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the availability restriction earns its place as a separate clarifying sentence.

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 simple one-parameter read-only query, the schema fully documents the required input and the description communicates the public-only scope. However, because there is no output schema or annotations, a little more detail about what the leaderboard contains or how it is ordered would make it fully complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter, explaining that share_token comes from a /pool/<token> URL. The description only restates 'by its share token' and adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource—a leaderboard of a public community pool—and the identifying key, its share token. It also sets scope by excluding private and club pools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools current_tournament and how_4grand_works.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The phrase 'Private and club pools are not available' states a limitation, but it does not tell an agent when to prefer this tool or when to use an alternative.

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