get_program_ranking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral nuance: rankings are not guaranteed and depend on the program publishing one. Beyond that, no details about absence handling, pagination, or data shape are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action and resource. It is appropriately brief, though its brevity contributes to missing parameter-level guidance.

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 strong annotations and simple schema, this is minimally viable for a read-only ranking lookup. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify pagination behavior, ranking availability, or what data is returned, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not mention slug, page, or page_size. It only implies that the ranking belongs to a program, which loosely maps to slug, and says nothing about pagination or defaults. The parameter names are self-explanatory, which keeps this from being a 1.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consulte') and resource ('le classement des hunters d'un programme'), and adds a precise condition: the ranking is only available when the program publishes one. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_program or get_program_hacktivity, which serve different purposes.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: use this tool when a program publishes a ranking. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the conditional phrasing provides clear context for selection.

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