speedrun_get_leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose statement—it does not explain ordering, whether the leaderboard is paginated, or how the filters affect results.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain the undocumented filters (platform, emulators, video_only) or what the leaderboard response contains, leaving an agent to guess at invocation details.

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 only 50%, with platform, emulators, and video_only completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions on these filter parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('leaderboard for a Speedrun.com game category'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like speedrun_list_runs, which could also return run data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus speedrun_list_runs, speedrun_get_game, or speedrun_get_user. The description implies it is for leaderboards but gives no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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