player_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so exceptionally. It states that the tool 'Makes one logical GET request,' does not auto-fetch continuation pages, explicitly reports pagination probe results, and details array limits (100 rows and 256 KiB) plus truncation/refusal behavior. This is rich, specific, and beyond what a typical description offers.

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 dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds useful behavioral caveats. However, it contains a clunky run-on ('Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages.') and could be tightened. Still, every sentence contributes unique information, so it earns a strong score.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what data is read, pagination absence, response limits, truncation handling. It omits authentication/rate-limit details, but for a read-only GET-style endpoint these are less critical. The vague remark 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' is a minor gap, but the overall context is adequate.

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 has 0% description coverageiones for its three parameters (format, season, leaderboard). The description only mentions them as a group ('selected season, leaderboard and format') without explaining value formats, defaults, or constraints. The note 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' is too vague to compensate for the lack of parameter-level detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the ranked leaderboard rows for the selected season, leaderboard and format.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that conveys the core operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like player_leaderboard_with_player or player_richlist, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filters and pagination but never names a sibling or states the conditions under which one should choose this tool over another. Given the large sibling list (especially player_leaderboard_with_player), this omission leaves selection ambiguous.

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