get_ranking_guild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves guild rankings, which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriately concise. However, it may be too terse to be fully useful, but for a simple read operation, it's acceptable. It's front-loaded with the purpose and doesn't include redundant information.

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 5 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks context on how to use the tool effectively. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., whether world_name is required, or what happens if only date is given), nor does it mention any constraints or prerequisites. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description adds no operational guidance, making the tool under-specified for an agent to call correctly.

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% as each parameter has a description (e.g., '조회 기준일 (YYYY-MM-DD)' for date, '랭킹 타입 (0: 주간, 1: 플래그, 2: 지하수로)' for ranking_type). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides complete definitions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Retrieves guild ranking.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'get_ranking_guild' differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_ranking_overall' or 'get_ranking_union'. An agent can immediately understand this tool is for guild rankings specifically.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for guild rankings specifically, or that other ranking tools exist. There's no mention of context like needing a specific world or date, or that it's a read-only operation. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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