read_point_leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the pagination note, which is mild extra context. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, making 3 appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core capability comes first and the disambiguation follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Rich annotations plus a full output schema mean the description need only state purpose, pagination, and the sibling branch, all of which it does. Nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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%, and both limit and offset carry their own defaults and meanings there. The description's '(paginated)' merely gestures at this without adding syntax, bounds, or ordering details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('Arcadia points leaderboard'), and a scope qualifier ('paginated'). It explicitly separates itself from read_wallet_points, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (read_wallet_points) and the condition that selects it (a specific wallet's points balance), which is the key routing decision among the siblings. It does not mention other exclusions, such as whether date ranges or filtering are unsupported, but the primary branch is clear.

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