Rank by a numeric measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure ('Returns total, min, median and max beside the leaders') and behavior of omitting 'by'. However, it does not mention default order/limit or potential error conditions, which are partially covered by schema defaults.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, differentiation, return behavior, and a usage tip. Every sentence adds unique value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description provides a solid overview of purpose, differentiation, and return content. It lacks explicit mention of default ordering/limit, but these are in the schema. The tool's complexity is well-handled.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'by' parameter behavior (omit to list measures) and providing examples of valid measure names. Other parameters (type, limit, order) are not expanded, but schema already covers them.

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: 'Who holds the maximum of a measure' with concrete examples (events, kills, worshippers, deaths). It also distinguishes itself from sibling base_rates by contrasting value-based ranking vs. count-based ordering.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Complements base_rates, which orders by how many objects share a value rather than by the value itself' tells when to use this tool instead. Also instructs 'Omit by to list the available measures,' which is a clear usage directive.

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