Get Leaderboard Around User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, behavior when the user is unranked or absent, or what the returned entries look like — notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the one parameter hint. No filler, though the second sentence largely duplicates the schema's leaderboardKey description.

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 and no annotations, the description should ideally describe the return shape (entry list, ranks) and edge cases such as unranked users. It covers the core purpose adequately but leaves these gaps for a fairly simple read 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%, so range, userId, and leaderboardKey are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the leaderboardKey default behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Gets leaderboard entries around a specific user's position'), which is more precise than the sibling get_leaderboard_top or get_user_rank. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction, keeping this below 5.

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 note about passing leaderboardKey to target a board versus omitting it for the default gives some operating context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over horizon_get_leaderboard_top or horizon_get_user_rank. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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