Get the QuiJutsu player leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool ranks by different metrics per mode, one of which ignores a parameter, and the payload is deliberately minimal ('usernames, scores and ranks only').

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the mode rules, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs — including the return-field note that has no output schema to back it up.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and with all-optional parameters and full schema coverage there is little else to explain. Minor gaps remain: sort direction is never stated explicitly (only implied by 'Top'), and no note on behavior when a mode has no ranked data.

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 enums are documented in the schema, including 'Ignored for ranked' on period, so the baseline is 3. The description restates those semantics rather than extending them — it adds no detail on ordering direction, tie-breaking, or whether defaults behave as expected.

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 opens with a specific resource ('Top QuiJutsu players') and immediately explains the two ranking dimensions, so the verb+resource is unambiguous. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit — 'players' naturally contrasts with get_tournament_leaderboard and get_contributor_leaderboard, but the description never names them.

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?

It tells the agent how to choose between modes ('casual ranks by season points... ranked ranks by ELO') and that period is irrelevant for ranked, which is useful conditional guidance. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the tournament or contributor leaderboard siblings, leaving that selection to inference from the tool name alone.

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