get_rankings

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

The description says 'Read,' which indicates a non-mutating operation, but this is already implied by the verb 'get' in the tool name. With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'compact' means in terms of response structure. Minimal extra value beyond the verb.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is concise and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, both well-described in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description provides the high-level context of retrieving ranking boards with compact top tracks, which is sufficient for a read-only tool. It could benefit from noting whether authentication is needed, but overall the provided information is complete enough for selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'page' and 'page_size'. The description itself does not add semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema already handles parameter understanding, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read a page of NetEase ranking boards with compact top tracks.' It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('NetEase ranking boards'), and the mention of 'compact top tracks' adds useful detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_songs or get_playlist, which are not about rankings.

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 when to use the tool: when you need NetEase ranking data. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or provide exclusions, such as 'Use get_recommendations for personalized suggestions instead.' The usage context is clear from the purpose but not elaborated.

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