nhl_skater_leaders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover basic safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed' and a detailed return structure, which helps the agent understand what to expect without exceeding the annotation coverage. No contradictions found.

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 highly concise and well-structured: the main purpose in one line, a compact return format summary, and a single example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a full return structure, an example request, and auth requirements. It covers purpose, parameters, and expected output, making it self-sufficient for a simple read-only stats tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with an example showing valid parameter combinations (e.g., 'season_or_current': 'current', 'limit': 10), and the return structure clarifies how parameters like categories map to output fields. This goes slightly beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'League leaders among skaters' with a specific list of categories (goals, assists, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool nhl_goalie_leaders by explicitly targeting skaters, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., nhl_goalie_leaders) or mention exclusions. The example gives usage context, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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