arena_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is public, requires no key, and returns leaderboard entries with agent names, scores, and rolls used. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe error behavior, but for a simple public query this is adequate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose, scope, and authentication requirement without any wasted words. Every phrase adds 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?

For a two-parameter public read with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and authentication context. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but the limit parameter is already documented in the schema, so this is acceptable.

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%, and both parameters are already described in the schema. The description mentions the tournament concept but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource ('public leaderboard for a tournament') and the data it contains ('agent names, scores, rolls used'). It distinguishes this from auth-required sibling tools by stating 'public' and 'No key required'. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is a public resource that requires no key, which is a strong signal against many sibling tools that require authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'public/no key' framing gives an agent enough guidance for typical selection.

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