cy_ranking_characters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves rankings, without mentioning aspects like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, with no wasted text. This makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the ranking system, return format, or behavioral traits. While conciseness is good, more context is needed for effective use, especially with sibling ranking tools that might overlap in functionality.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (characterId, rankingType, offset, limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining valid values for rankingType or how offset/limit affect results. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 '캐릭터별 랭킹을 조회합니다' (Retrieves rankings by character) states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (character rankings), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of rankings (e.g., competitive, popularity) or distinguish from sibling tools like cy_ranking_ratingpoint and cy_ranking_tsj, which also handle rankings. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like cy_ranking_ratingpoint or cy_ranking_tsj, nor does it provide context such as prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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