get_top_scorers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation (getting data) but does not disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is minimally adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the core function and provides a concrete usage example. Perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose and usage, but lacks details on return format or edge cases. However, for a simple data retrieval tool, it is sufficient.

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 50% (only sport and stat have enums with descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the 'stat' parameter can be goals or assists ('top scorers or top assisters') and provides a natural language example. It does not elaborate on limit or slug, but the example implies slug is for league like 'premier-league'.

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 it retrieves top scorers or assisters for a competition, with an example query ('who's leading the Premier League scoring charts?'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top scorers'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_player or get_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 description provides a clear usage example ('who's leading the Premier League scoring charts?') which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context and example are sufficient guidance.

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