List Leaderboard Boards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are scoped to the configured app API key, which implies an auth/configuration prerequisite, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or failure modes. It is a harmless read, so the gap is modest, but the disclosure is thin.

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 the resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (app API key scoping, board keys for multi-board calls) adds information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it only partially does, telling the agent it gets board keys but not the list shape or what else each board entry contains. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The mention of 'configured app API key' correctly signals that scoping comes from ambient config rather than an argument.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('leaderboard boards'), scoped to the configured app API key, which clearly separates it from data-fetching siblings like horizon_get_leaderboard_top or horizon_get_user_rank. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'including each board key for multi-board calls' hints that this is the discovery step before board-specific calls. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative to route the agent.

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