player_burn_event_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that points and burn quantities are decimal strings returned unchanged, that exactly one logical GET request is made, that no continuation pages are fetched, that the list is capped at 100 rows / 256 KiB, that truncation is reported in text and metadata, and that oversized records are refused without partial fields. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 description is longer than needed and contains vague filler sentences such as 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema.' These add length without clarity, while the genuinely useful behavioral details are buried in the middle.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral contract well: what is returned, the limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. The confusing parameter statements slightly detract from completeness, but overall the agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema declares zero properties and additionalProperties=false, yet the description references 'Required inputs' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' without defining any. This introduces confusion and implies parameters exist that the schema forbids, adding no useful meaning and actively misleading an agent about the tool's interface.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Read the burn-event leaderboard and its totals.' It further distinguishes this tool from the full-leaderboard sibling by noting it returns only a 'bounded leading portion' while retaining totals, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a bounded leading portion is acceptable, since it does not auto-fetch continuation pages and is limited to 100 rows. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when to prefer the full leaderboard, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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