lichess_leaderboards_all

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

Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints. The description adds useful context by stating that no authentication is needed and by disclosing the Top 10 limitation and the return structure, which go beyond what annotations convey.

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 core purpose. It includes a purpose statement, return shape, example, and auth note, though the example line is slightly redundant with the first sentence.

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 covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return format, example, and authentication. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 there is no parameter detail to provide. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly abstains from irrelevant parameter info.

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 returns the top 10 for every time control and variant in one call. It uses a specific verb and explicit resource scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling lichess_leaderboard by emphasizing the comprehensive single-call nature.

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 usage through phrases like 'in a single call' and 'Every leaderboard at once,' but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It provides context but lacks explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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