get_ranking_achievement

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only contributes '조회합니다' (read-only query). It does not mention pagination/default date behavior, whether ocid narrows the result, filtering semantics, rate limits, or access constraints.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it achieves this by omitting almost all guidance, so it is not ideal in informational value.

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?

Given the many sibling ranking tools, three optional parameters, and zero annotation coverage, a single sentence is not enough to tell an agent when to invoke this tool and how it behaves. The output schema covers return shape, but selection and behavioral context are missing.

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%, with date, ocid, and page already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 gives a clear action ('조회합니다' – queries/retrieves) and a specific resource ('업적 랭킹' – achievement ranking), so the core purpose is immediately understandable. It is still a minimal paraphrase of the tool name and does not explicitly contrast it with the many sibling ranking endpoints.

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 when-to-use guidance is present. The description only says that rankings are queried and never states when get_ranking_achievement should be preferred over get_ranking_overall, get_ranking_union, get_ranking_guild, etc., nor what selection criteria apply.

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