List levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the level set is fixed at 9, titles can be empty, and a per-level member share is returned — genuine added value without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a field-by-field elaboration; every clause carries information. Slight redundancy between the lead line and the enumeration keeps it from a 5.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what each returned level entry contains (number, Skool's name, admin title or empty, member share). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the group URL name format. The description adds no further parameter guidance, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the 9 levels of the group's leaderboard') plus the exact fields returned, so an agent can distinguish it from get_leaderboard and rename_level without opening either 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?

Names the sibling alternative explicitly ('get_leaderboard ranks the members') and clarifies where points originate, which effectively routes ranking questions elsewhere. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when / not when' statement, so it lands just below the top band.

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