get_ranking

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys read-only intent via 'Get', market-wide scope, and ranking order via 'top companies', but it does not describe response shape, ordering direction nuances, or why some metrics might be better when ranked lower (e.g., emissions). A 3 is appropriate: useful but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is delivered in a compact second sentence.

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?

The tool is simple: one required enum parameter plus one optional limit. The description adequately covers purpose, scope, and alternative routing. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of what a league-table row contains would improve completeness, but the current wording is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping several cryptic enum values to human-readable concepts ('return on equity', 'market capitalisation', 'dividend yield', 'female director ratio') and clarifying the one-metric constraint. It does not decode all enum values, but the added semantics exceed the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('market-wide league table') with a clear scope ('one metric'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with screen_companies. The examples of metrics make the ranking purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool: 'who is highest on X'. Also gives a concrete when-not-to-use directive: 'use screen_companies when you need several conditions at once'. This is a clear usage rule with a named alternative.

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