Researcher leaderboard

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the rating formula (running sum of accuracy points, signal −10…+7, impact 0…50), that program-mode excludes the authenticated account, and what fields each mode returns. Auth requirements and pagination semantics beyond schema are not restated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Mode split is front-loaded and sentences are dense with information rather than filler. The rating-formula detail is slightly tangential to invocation but legitimately explains sortable fields.

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 supplies the returned fields for both modes, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Defaults and paging live in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `program` is not just a filter but switches the entire computation and output shape (reports count, total and best payout), and `search` is implied as username filtering. This is genuine semantic value beyond the schema text.

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 ('researcher leaderboard') and clearly splits two modes: global ranking without `program`, per-program ranking with it, naming the exact metrics returned in each mode. An agent can distinguish it from `get_researcher` and `program_stats` without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the condition that switches behavior ('Without `program`… With `program`…') and routes to the alternative tool ('Use `get_researcher` for a full profile'). The when-to-use decision is fully spelled out.

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