get_rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'paginated ranking data' and mentions defaults for parameters, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading).

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation and return information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters. The only minor inefficiency is that the first sentence could be more front-loaded with key details about filtering capabilities.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, documents all parameters thoroughly, and mentions the return format. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values. It could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose, format, and defaults with examples. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, making all 5 parameters well-understood.

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 purpose: 'Get current world rankings and records for a specific event.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('world rankings and records'), and scope ('for a specific event'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_competition_event_results' or 'search_competitions_by_event', which might also involve event-related data retrieval.

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 usage context through the mention of filtering by region and ranking type, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_competition_event_results' or 'search_competitions_by_event'. It lacks statements about when-not-to-use or direct comparisons with sibling tools.

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