Get tips leaderboard

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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ranking basis (all-time vs. period), no ordering, no pagination or size limits, and no note on what the leaderboard actually contains.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say something about what the leaderboard returns (ranking metric, time window, entry count). As written, an agent knows the call shape but not the result.

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?

There is a single optional 'channel' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the default resolution logic (SE_CHANNEL_ID or the token's channel). Per the baseline rule, the schema already carries this, and the description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 gives a verb ('Get') and a resource ('the channel's tips leaderboard'), but it is essentially a restatement of the title 'Get tips leaderboard'. It does nothing to separate this tool from the close sibling tips_top, leaving an agent unsure which leaderboard-style endpoint to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite mention, and no reference to the near-identical siblings tips_top, tips_list, or tips_get. The agent is left to infer the choice purely from the name.

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