pl_team_leaderboard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool is known to be safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable context by stating 'Auth: none needed', clarifying that 'season is a query param here, not a path segment', and showing the return shape. 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 well-structured: a concise opening, a note, return shape, an example, and authentication info. It is somewhat verbose but every section adds value, and the information is front-loaded. The example and return shape are useful, though the row description is redundant with the return format.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description kindly provides the return structure and a concrete example. It also covers authentication and the API quirk about the season parameter. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though pagination details are left to the schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter is already well-documented (e.g., cid is 'Competition id (8)', sort is 'Sort metric:dir', limit default is 20). The description does not significantly add to this beyond the concrete example, which reinforces but does not expand the semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Team stat leaderboard — sort by any Opta team metric', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pl_standings and pl_player_leaderboard by focusing on team metrics and sorting, and the example with '2025/26 teams by tackles won' further clarifies the exact use case.

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 when to use the tool: to retrieve a sortable team stat leaderboard based on Opta metrics. It provides a concrete example and notes the season as a query parameter, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, though the purpose is distinctive enough among siblings.

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