Get the researcher leaderboard

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that ranks are based on reputation for all_time and on validated reports for monthly/quarterly. This explains the semantics of the returned ordering without contradicting any annotation. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or exact country match, but that is acceptable given the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Top researchers on BugSecure'), followed by ranking details, then the optional filter and sibling pointer. Every sentence contributes information, and the alternative tool is named without extra fluff. This is exemplary concision.

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 read-only list tool with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what the leaderboard contains, how periods differ, and the country filter. It also points to a sibling for deeper researcher details. It does not mention pagination limits (covered by the limit parameter schema) or exact matching behavior (covered by the country parameter description), so those gaps are already compensated by structured fields. Overall, the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema already explain the limits, periods, and country matching. The description adds only a slight reinforcement of what the period values mean (validated reports for monthly/quarterly), but it does not provide new syntax or examples. Thus it adds minimal value beyond the structured schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Top researchers on BugSecure' and explains the ranking dimensions (all-time by reputation, monthly/quarterly by validated reports). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_researcher_profile, making its purpose unambiguous. This is a clear, specific statement with no tautology.

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 names the alternative tool get_researcher_profile and tells the user to use it when they want more about one researcher, which is direct sibling differentiation. It does not exhaustively list all alternative tools (e.g., get_program_stats, search), but for the closest counterpart the guidance is explicit. The optional country filter is also mentioned, aiding selection context. Slight deduction for not covering all possible alternatives.

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