get_ranking_union

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'queries' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple query tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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, which is concise but arguably too minimal. It lacks structure such as usage context or notes about the result format. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name and schema.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description does not explain what 'union ranking' means or how it differs from other ranking endpoints. Given the large number of sibling ranking tools, an agent would benefit from clarification on when this specific tool is relevant. The description is incomplete for the context.

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 the input schema already documents each parameter (date, ocid, page, world_name) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 states a clear verb and resource: '유니온 랭킹을 조회합니다' (queries union ranking). This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling ranking tools like get_ranking_overall or get_ranking_guild, so an agent might confuse which ranking to use.

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 the many ranking-related siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that this tool is for 'union' ranking specifically, but no criteria or alternatives are given.

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