Rank Categories

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and the description aligns with this. Additionally, the description details the output structure (first_tags, second_tags) beyond annotations, providing full 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with actionable detail about usage and output structure. No wasted words.

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 has no parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies sufficient context: what the tool returns and how it relates to rank_list. It is complete for this simple read operation.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score is 3 according to guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it provides no additional parameter info.

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 retrieves rank tab category configurations for the popularity leaderboard, specifying the returned structure (first_tags with second_tags) and distinguishing it from rank_list by directing usage of the second_tags key to the latter.

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 'Pass a second_tags key (e.g. `hot_all-us`) to rank_list', providing direct guidance on when to use this tool (to get categories) versus its sibling rank_list (to get rankings). This is precise and helpful.

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