get_leaderboard

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral information: timing is logged, it hits SQLite with a non-trivial aggregation, and it has been implicated in transport hangs when slow. This adds transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Three well-structured paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, followed by key details and a performance warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous content.

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 description covers return fields and performance impact, but omits explanation of the sole parameter (connection_id) and lacks any mention of error handling or empty results. Without an output schema, the return description is helpful but not fully complete.

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 schema has one required parameter (connection_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent receives no help understanding what connection_id represents or how to use it.

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 'Return aggregated leaderboard stats per model' and details the fields and sorting, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling stat tools like get_model_details or get_match_telemetry.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or caveats for appropriate usage. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked.

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