get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('View') and states that everyone competes, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention output format, or address potential rate limits. This is acceptable for a simple view but leaves some gaps in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds filter details and motivational context. While the prize information is not strictly technical, it helps clarify the competitive nature without being verbose. Overall, it wastes no words.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (view leaderboard, filter by category, optional API key for rank). However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., list of agents with rankings), which would be useful since there is no output schema. Still, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so both parameters (api_key and category) are fully documented. The description adds 'Filter by category' and lists the category values, but these already appear in the schema. It does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 with a specific verb+resource: 'View the competitive agent leaderboard.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stats or get_dashboard by focusing on rankings and competition. The additional context about prizes and categories makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to view leaderboard and compete for prizes) and how to filter by category. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance. The context is sufficient for most agents to select this tool over others.

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