get_attorney_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking methodology (composite score considering ratings, reviews, experience, and case outcomes) and geographic scope (Colorado), which adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or output structure limitations beyond what is implied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise explanation of ranking criteria. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, the criteria used, and the geographic scope, satisfying the need to explain return behavior without needing output schema details.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it simply implies a default limit via 'top-ranked' without referencing the parameter.

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 'Get the top-ranked personal injury attorneys in Colorado' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attorney leaderboard'). It explicitly defines the ranking basis (composite score of ratings, reviews, experience, and case outcomes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_attorneys or get_city_review_leaderboard.

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 for retrieving a ranked list of top attorneys via the phrase 'top-ranked' and the ranking criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_attorneys or get_city_review_leaderboard. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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