datagolf_rankings

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: it explicitly states the auth requirement (DATAGOLF_KEY) and provides the complete return structure, including field names. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, return format, and auth. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no redundant text.

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 simple tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the data returned (with structure) and the auth requirement. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke successfully.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter (file_format) as 'Response format' with a default value. The description adds no additional information about this parameter, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Data Golf player rankings (top ~500) with skill estimate and OWGR rank.' This specifies the exact resource and output content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like datagolf_player_list or datagolf_schedule.

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 implies the tool is used when rankings are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or mentions any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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