get_segment_leaderboard

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 the tool retrieves a leaderboard but doesn't explain what a 'segment leaderboard' entails (e.g., ranking of athletes, performance metrics), how data is returned (e.g., paginated results, format), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly without wasted words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'segment leaderboard' is, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like pagination defaults or error handling. For a tool with many parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented (e.g., 'Segment ID', 'Filter by gender'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters', which is already implied by the schema's optional parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 segment leaderboard with optional filters'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('segment leaderboard'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_segment' or 'explore_segments', which might also retrieve segment-related data.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'get_segment' or 'explore_segments'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts.

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