loyalteez_get_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state auth requirements, whether brandId scoping is enforced, any result limits, or return behavior. The doc reference is the only additional context offered.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core capability, plus a useful documentation pointer. No filler, though it is quite terse relative to the tool's filtering options.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a ranked leaderboard entry contains, but it does not explain the return shape. The purpose and filtering scope are covered, but return-value context is left to inference.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the metric options, period enum, limit default, and brandId env fallback. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get ranked leaderboards') with an explicit scope note ('by any metric'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though 'update_leaderboard_stats' is a clearly distinct write operation, so the read purpose is inferable.

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 notes supported capabilities ('multiple time periods and platform filtering') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative even though a leaderboard-writing sibling exists.

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