get-current-goalie-leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'current' means (e.g., current season, current day), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'current' means temporally, what format the results will be in, whether there are pagination considerations, or what happens when no data is available. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain valid values for 'category' beyond the examples in the schema, or provide context about the 'limit' parameter's practical implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get current NHL goalie stats leaders' specifies the verb (get), resource (NHL goalie stats leaders), and temporal scope (current). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-season-goalie-leaders' by emphasizing 'current' vs. 'season', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-current-stat-leaders' which might overlap in functionality.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get-season-goalie-leaders' (current vs. historical data) or 'get-current-stat-leaders' (goalie-specific vs. general stats). There's no information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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