List companies by ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that responses are cached for 15 minutes and are millisecond-fast, indicating potential staleness and performance characteristics. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'fetch' and 'pre-computed' imply no side effects, and the enum constrains inputs. One minor gap is the lack of info on response format, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then enumerates the slugs, and closes with a practical usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, cache behavior, and even provides a rationale for its existence. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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%, with the 'key' parameter description already explaining each enum value fully. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond restating the same four slugs and adding context about the top-100 nature. This meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 the tool fetches a pre-computed company leaderboard by slug, enumerating exactly four specific rankings. This distinguishes it from sibling search/lookup tools by highlighting that it serves pre-assembled top-N lists rather than arbitrary queries.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for 'top 100 …' style queries the LLM would otherwise assemble from many advanced_search calls. It also lists the exact four valid slugs, providing clear alternatives with advanced_search and implicitly excluding other use cases.

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