get-skater-leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on rate limits, authentication needs, whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), what the return format looks like, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap 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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: no information on the scope (e.g., current season vs. historical), no details on return format or structure, and no differentiation from similar sibling tools. For a statistical query tool in a server with many related tools, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('category' and 'limit'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'skaters' means in context or provide examples. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('NHL statistical leaders for skaters'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-season-stat-leaders' or 'get-current-stat-leaders', which appear to be similar statistical leader tools but for different contexts or player types.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to statistics and leaders (e.g., 'get-season-stat-leaders', 'get-current-stat-leaders', 'get-season-goalie-leaders'), there's no indication of whether this tool is for current season, all-time, or another scope, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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