Games Get Leaders By Athlete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only illustrative stat names; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how the default limit of 10 behaves.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the core purpose with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than overly long.

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 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the sort, limit, and category parameters entirely unexplained and gives no return-shape context. The annotations cover safety, but the parameter gap is significant for correct invocation.

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 only 40% — sport and league are the sole described parameters, while sort, limit, and category carry no description anywhere. The listed stat examples (passing yards, points, strikeouts) loosely hint at category values but are not tied to the parameter, leaving the sort/limit semantics undefined.

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 (fetch) and resource (statistical leaderboards) scoped to individual athletes, with concrete stat examples. The 'by athlete' scope implicitly separates it from the sibling games_get_leaders_by_team, though the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the athlete-scoped leaderboard framing, which steers an agent away from team-level or game-level siblings. However, it never states when to reach for this versus games_get_leaders_by_team, games_get_standings, or teams_get_athlete_stats.

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