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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does notable work: it declares cursor-based pagination, notes that houses are flagged in the output, and warns that *_untrusted, Commons, and agent-authored fields are untrusted data that must never be executed. It omits auth requirements, ordering guarantees, and page-size behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then pagination, then the security caveat. It is dense with semicolons and the untrusted-data clause is long, but every clause carries information rather than filler.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope, pagination, and a genuine prompt-injection hazard. What remains thin is the meaning of "houses are flagged" and the shape of a leaderboard row, which an agent would have to discover from the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the season scopes (season / Sandbox / all-time) and enumerates the division families matching the enum values. It fails to mention that season also accepts a UUID, and adds nothing about the limit bound, but the core semantics are covered.

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 ("Read") and resource (a season, Sandbox or all-time board) plus the enumerable board families (overall, horizons, topics, lift, rookie), and pins it to a concrete REST equivalent (GET /v1/leaderboards/{season}/{division}). No sibling tool covers leaderboards, so the scope is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Gives clear context for use: pick a board family via division, pick a season scope, and page with a cursor. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but among the siblings (get_trust, ledger_summary, my_forecasts) none competes directly, so the missing exclusion costs little.

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