Get a Harpd Rank board

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description goes well beyond by explaining that rankPoints are promotional placement, not quality scores, and that ordering by rank is also derived from promotional placement. It also discloses the live-snapshot nature, which complements the openWorldHint. This is critical behavioral context that prevents misinterpretation of results.

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 well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then the critical caveat about rankPoints, then the snapshot nature. Each sentence earns its place, and the CRITICAL flag draws attention to the most important trap. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 the key pitfalls and usage constraints, but it does not describe the return structure or what 'period metadata' entails, which could be useful given there is no output schema. However, the critical semantics about sorting and board types are well covered, and the lack of output schema is offset by the clarity of the description. Minor gap, but overall complete for safe invocation.

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 significant value for the 'sort' parameter by warning that 'rankPoints' is not a quality ordering and that 'rank' also reflects promotional placement. This is crucial beyond the schema's terse description. It does not add details for limit/offset/category, but those are adequately described in the schema.

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 reads one of three published Harpd Rank boards and returns period metadata. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Harpd Rank boards'), and distinguishes itself from historical time-series tools by emphasizing it is a live snapshot. This differentiates it from siblings like get_ranking_history without naming them explicitly.

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 context on when to use the tool: reading published boards for a given period, not historical data. It explicitly states the board is not a historical time series, implying an alternative exists, but it does not name get_ranking_history or get_category_ranking. The CRITICAL note about rankPoints also guides appropriate use, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use list.

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