Rankings listing

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and other annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: rows carry null player_id for non-roster players to avoid silent holes, ITF data starts on 2026-07-29, and PRO plan access is required. No contradiction with 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds relevant caveats without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description covers data coverage (ITF start date), row-level behavior (null player_id), the alternative tool, and the PRO plan. The minor inconsistency between 'FULL table' and the limit parameter prevents a perfect score, but overall it is highly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates as_of semantics but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already describes. The 'FULL' phrasing could conflict with the limit parameter, though the schema clarifies the limit behavior.

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 lists the FULL published ranking table in rank order for one system, with the specific date semantics (newest week at or before as_of). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_player_rankings by focusing on the full table rather than specific players.

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 explicitly says 'For point-in-time records of SPECIFIC players use get_player_rankings', giving a clear alternative and when-to-use guidance. It also notes the PRO plan requirement, which sets expectations for availability.

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