Get leaderboard

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the scoring rule (one point per like received), the refresh cadence ('Skool recounts it every few minutes'), and the presence of an updated_at freshness field. That is meaningful behavioral context; only the absence of pagination/size limits or failure behavior keeps it from a 5.

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, the scope and periods front-loaded, then the return shape and freshness note. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 carries the return contract itself: top 10, points, your rank when on the board, updated_at. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and read the result.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the 30d default and the enum values, which the description merely restates. The description adds no format or edge-case guidance for the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (the group leaderboard), its exact scope (top 10 members by points), the supported periods, and the inclusion of the caller's own rank. That is precise enough to separate it from list_members or get_group_stats without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'Returns the Leaderboards tab' implies when it applies, and the period options imply the choice within the tool. But it never states when to prefer this over sibling reads like list_members or get_group_stats, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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