get_city_review_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral context by revealing that attorneys are ranked by 'composite review metrics including velocity, freshness, momentum, and rating.' However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as sorting direction, pagination, or error behavior. This provides some transparency but leaves significant gaps for a read operation with no annotation support.

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 long, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get,' and provides essential context without any fluff. Every clause adds value: the tool's purpose, geographic scope, and ranking criteria are all covered in a compact form. It is concise yet informative.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and ranking basis. It does not explain return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity mean the description is nearly sufficient. It could still benefit from mentioning that results are ordered or that a default limit exists, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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%: both 'city' and 'limit' have detailed descriptions with examples and constraints. The tool description does not add additional param-specific meaning beyond that already in the schema. The mention of composite metrics relates to ranking logic, not to parameter semantics. Baseline 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 the tool's function: 'Get the review-based leaderboard for attorneys in a specific Colorado city.' It specifies the resource (attorney leaderboard), the scope (Colorado city), and the basis (review metrics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_attorney_leaderboard which likely covers broader leaderboards.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need a review-based leaderboard for a specific Colorado city. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for overall leaderboard use get_attorney_leaderboard'). The description implies the use case without making alternatives explicit, which fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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