Get a QuiJutsu tournament leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the default-tournament behavior, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination/ordering of the ranked list or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is and what it returns, then defaults and filtering. No filler.

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 enumerates the returned fields and totals, which is exactly what's needed here. Remaining gap is ordering/pagination of the ranked list, minor for a read-only leaderboard with a limit default.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by restating the default-tournament semantics for tournament_id and the national-leaderboard effect of country in the context of the returned data. limit's effect on the standings list is implied but not elaborated.

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+resource ('Standings for a QuiJutsu tournament') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (rank, wins, losses, ELO, accuracy, response time) plus the aggregate fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_leaderboard and get_contributor_leaderboard, which are not tournament-scoped.

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?

Explains the default (World Anime Tournament) and the country-filter path to a national leaderboard, which tells the agent how to invoke it for both use cases. It doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling leaderboard tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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