get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does add useful context: window_days is ignored for skill_score, and category uses the ranked browse view instead of the dedicated endpoint (which is uncategorized). This explains parameter interactions and a limitation. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, nor describe pagination or result ordering beyond the sort parameter, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

The description is compact and well-organized. It leads with a one-line purpose, then uses a simple bullet-like list of parameters with inline explanations. No redundant fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format details are not needed. The description covers parameter semantics and edge cases (e.g., ignored window_days, category behavior). Missing is a broader statement about when to leverage the leaderboard tool, but that's more under usage guidelines. For an agent to call it correctly, the parameter constraints and behavior are sufficiently specified. A minor gap is lack of mention of any permissions or side effects, but given the tool's nature, this is not critical.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains every parameter: sort options (skill_score, biggest_improvement, efficiency, top_rated), category as optional filter with a caveat about the endpoint, window_days range and the special case for skill_score, and limit range. This adds substantial value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Ranked skills leaderboard', which clearly indicates the tool returns a ranked list of skills. It distinguishes from siblings by name and content: search_skills and get_skill are about searching/retrieving individual skills, while this is explicitly a leaderboard. However, the phrasing is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction, so it's not as explicit as 'Get ranked skills leaderboard'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus search_skills or get_skill. The description focuses solely on parameters and does not mention when a user should choose a leaderboard over a search or single-skill lookup. There's no discussion of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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