Get global efficiency leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description implies a read-only operation by using 'Fetches,' but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits like rate limits, authorization needs, or safety guarantees. It meets the minimum but lacks depth.

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?

A single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for a simple read operation.

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 is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It only explains the resource and metric, ignoring filtering, pagination, and other relevant details needed for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description only repeats the metric enum values already in the schema, adding no extra meaning. Parameters like limit, offset, country, playerType, and playerBuild are left unexplained, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('Fetches') and specific resource ('global efficiency leaderboard'), and mentions the metric types (EHP, EHB, combined). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `wom_get_record_leaderboard` or `wom_get_delta_leaderboard` that retrieve different leaderboards.

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 (e.g., record or delta leaderboards) or when not to use it. The description does not mention any prerequisites or use cases.

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