lounge_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several behaviors: it's free, covers all-time data, uses a specific sort order, and accepts an optional board filter. It doesn't describe the response format, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 two sentences with no filler. 'FREE' is an efficient behavioral note, and the sorting/filtering details are packed into minimal, essential words. 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?

For a simple read-only leaderboard tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what it returns, how results are sorted, and how to filter. It doesn't detail the return structure, but that is intuitive and not a significant gap.

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?

The schema description covers the parameter 100%, and the tool description adds concrete examples ('sequence', 'cipher-grandmaster') and reinforces that omitting the parameter returns all boards. This goes beyond the baseline by providing illustrative usage.

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 clearly identifies the resource (all-time leaderboards) and its ranking criteria (best streak, then calibration points, then average solve speed). It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by being the only leaderboard retrieval tool, with an optional board filter.

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 provides clear usage context: the tool is free and optionally filters to a single board, with examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and no exclusions are mentioned.

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