Games Get Leaders By Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that results span a whole league and are stat-category based; it says nothing about pagination, ordering behavior, or how 'limit' interacts with the leaderboard size.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and concrete examples at the end. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. However, with three of five parameters undocumented and no guidance on how category/sort/limit shape the leaderboard, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 only 40% — sport and league are documented, while sort, limit, and category are not. The examples (total offense, defensive points allowed, efficiency) give at least suggestive values for the otherwise undocumented 'category' parameter, which partially compensates, but sort/limit remain unclarified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') plus a clearly scoped resource ('team statistical leaderboards across a league') and illustrates the kind of stats returned. The team-vs-athlete split is only implied by the name relative to the sibling games_get_leaders_by_athlete, so the differentiation is not explicit in the text.

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 states what it returns but never says when to choose it over the closely related games_get_leaders_by_athlete, games_get_standings, games_get_rankings, or teams_get_team_statistics. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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