Top contributors leaderboard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover basic safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral specifics: it returns rows with display name, tier, total points, report count, and anti-fraud flag, and it clarifies ranking by points within a time window. This goes beyond the annotations but could mention potential pagination or rate limits, though none are implied.

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 two sentences long with no redundant words. The first sentence defines the action and output, while the second provides actionable use cases. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (fields listed), how to use it (time window, limit), and why (use cases). Annotations handle safety. No missing information is apparent, so completeness is high.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: limit (default 10, max 100) and range (enum: 30d, 90d, all). The description repeats the time window options but does not add new meaning or clarify parameter interactions. Since schema already does the heavy lifting, a 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 starts with a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'top N contributors for the organization, ranked by points in a time window'. It also lists the output fields (display name, tier, total points, etc.), making the tool's function unambiguous. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_usage' or 'list_skills', which serve different analytical needs.

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 second sentence explicitly states use cases: 'identify your most engaged power users, write them a thank-you message, or decide who deserves a bonus.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, such as 'get_usage' for broader metrics, so it slightly misses full guidance.

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