get_battle_ranking

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: the upstream ranking is unbounded, results are capped locally, and the `truncated` field signals whether more rows exist. That truncation contract is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the truncation caveat, then the disambiguation. No filler, though the final disambiguation sentence references a tool not present in the sibling list, slightly diluting its payoff.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the `truncated` return field and the local cap, and it covers the ranking axes. It omits return row shape and credential/player_context handling, so it is strong but not fully complete for a 6-param 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% and enums document side/metric/entity_type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description loosely restates the metric and entity-type options ("damage or points for players, countries, or military units") but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get a battle leaderboard) plus the ranking dimensions (damage/points; players/countries/military units) and explicitly separates itself from the global wealth ranking. An agent can pick it against the sibling get_battle/search_battles without reading the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for the call (battle ranking) and rules out a plausible look-alike (the deferred global wealth ranking). It does not state when to prefer it over siblings like get_battle or search_battles, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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