Get viewer rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what the rank represents (position vs. percentile), whether unranked viewers get an error, or channel/token fallback 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the purpose is stated before any qualification. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be considered fully optimized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, yet it never says whether 'rank' is a numeric position, an object, or how ties/unranked users are handled. For an openWorld read with no output contract, this is a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so both 'user' and 'channel' are fully documented in the schema, including the channel fallback to SE_CHANNEL_ID. The description only restates the user concept and adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a viewer's rank on the channel's points leaderboard'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as points_get_user or points_list_top, which sit in the same points namespace.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus points_get_user (raw balance) or points_list_top (leaderboard), which are the obvious alternatives. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the single sentence.

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