soul_leaderboard

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses that results are ranked by trust score and include DNA summaries, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant ambiguity for a data-retrieval tool.

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 a single, compact phrase that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It front-loads the key concept and uses the em dash to efficiently add detail, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides only high-level information about the result. It doesn't explain what a 'DNA summary' contains, how the leaderboard is structured, or any edge cases, leaving the agent with questions about the response format, but the tool itself is simple with one optional parameter.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the input schema with its description and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter formatting, constraints, or usage, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 tool as an agent trust leaderboard, specifying the ranking criterion (trust score) and included content (DNA summaries). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns', so it's a noun phrase rather than an imperative, but the purpose is still clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as soul_verify or soul_profile. The description doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to 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.