mdl_leaderboard_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description contributes nothing beyond that: no indication of ranking scope, pagination, or result size. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a terse description still leaves the operation's actual behavior opaque.

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 words is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; nothing meaningful is front-loaded because nothing is stated at all.

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?

With no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and an ambiguous resource, the description provides none of the context an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 0% for the single time_period parameter, whose anyOf integer|string union and "alltime" default are unexplained. The description adds no format, accepted values, or default semantics to compensate.

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?

"Leaderboard: get." restates the tool name and title without adding scope. It never says whose leaderboard (users, titles, dramas), what metric is ranked, or how it differs from siblings like mdl_explore_trending or mdl_users_get_user_stats.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the description when this leaderboard is the right choice over the many explore/list siblings.

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