player_burn_event_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses bounded returns, no auto-pagination, truncation limits (100 rows/256 KiB), truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and decimal-string preservation. This is well beyond a bare operation statement.

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?

The opening sentence is clear and front-loaded, and the technical caveats matter. However, the description is dense and somewhat repetitive (bounded portion, local limits, truncation reported) and contains vague policy wording, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description covers limits, truncation, single-request behavior, and value types. It leaves some ambiguity about the exact shape of totals and the meaning of 'declared filters,' but an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'declared filters' is slightly confusing given an empty schema, but it does not add actionable parameter meaning.

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 ('Read') and resource ('burn-event leaderboard'), and immediately clarifies it returns a bounded leading portion plus totals rather than the full upstream set. This distinguishes it from the sibling player_burn_event_full_leaderboard even without naming it.

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 implies the tool is for a single-request, bounded leaderboard read: it returns a leading portion, retains totals, and does not auto-fetch continuation pages. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over the full_leaderboard sibling or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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