find_leaderboard_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states that the tool performs a search (a read operation) and returns position, rank, and nearby players. It also discloses the constraint that only Immortal 3+ players are supported, which is a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple lookup, the provided information is sufficient.

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 well-organized. It opens with a one-sentence summary, followed by a brief explanation of behavior, then clearly separated Args and Returns sections. No filler or redundant information is present. Every sentence earns its place.

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 modest complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, player eligibility, parameter meanings, and return content. The output schema already details return structure, so the description's mention of 'position, rank, nearby players' is sufficient. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fills this gap with an Args block: 'name: Player's in-game name,' 'tag: Player's tag,' 'region: Region code (ap, na, eu, kr, br, latam),' 'season: Season identifier (default: e8a1).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, including valid region codes and the default for season. It also clarifies the 'tag' parameter, which might otherwise be ambiguous.

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: 'Find a player's position on the competitive leaderboard.' It further specifies it 'Searches leaderboard and provides position + nearby players,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_leaderboard (which likely returns the full board) and get_mmr_details_by_name (which focuses on MMR). The addition of 'Only works for Immortal 3+ players' narrows the scope, making 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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a specific player's leaderboard position and nearby players. It also provides a clear exclusion/condition: 'Only works for Immortal 3+ players,' telling the agent that the tool is not suitable for lower-ranked players. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use get_leaderboard for the full board'), the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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