chesscom_leaderboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the response size warning (~290 KB) and the exact return structure, which helps the agent anticipate the payload. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The Returns block is a useful structured addition, and the auth note is brief. However, the 'Example: All leaderboards' line adds minimal value and could be considered slightly redundant, though it is not harmful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, categories covered, return structure, response size, and authentication. The only minor gap is that the return structure is fully spelled out only for live_blitz, with ellipses for other categories, but the pattern is clearly implied.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4 for no parameters.

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 identifies the tool as providing Chess.com's leaderboards for every category, listing specific categories like live blitz, bullet, rapid, daily, variants, and tactics. The Returns section further confirms it retrieves these leaderboards. This distinguishes it from sibling chess tools focused on individual players, stats, or archives.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it returns all leaderboards with no parameters. It warns about the large response size (~290 KB) and notes that no authentication is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter retrieval tool, the usage scenario is obvious.

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