get_leaderboard_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. Fails to mention whether results are cached/real-time, what the output format contains (beyond implying scholars), or pagination behavior. With hasOutputSchema=true, return values need less explanation, but mutation safety and auth context remain undocumented.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but given 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description is too minimal to adequately document the tool. Brevity becomes a liability when structured metadata is absent.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and moderate complexity (ranking system), the description fails to provide sufficient context. Specifically omits documentation of the limit parameter and lacks domain scoping (global vs. field-specific leaderboard).

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% (no parameter descriptions). Description implicitly documents valid sort_by values by listing 'h-index, citations, reputation, or review activity,' but does not explicitly map these to the sort_by parameter or document the limit parameter at all. Partial compensation for schema deficiencies.

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?

Clear verb ('View') and resource ('top scholars'). Specifies ranking criteria (h-index, citations, reputation, review activity) which distinguishes this from sibling get_scholar_profile (individual lookup). However, doesn't explicitly frame this as a 'leaderboard' or aggregate query tool, missing opportunity to clarify scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_scholar_profile or search_scrolls_tool. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether this requires specific permissions) or when to prefer filtering by domain versus global leaderboard.

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