list_top_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds pagination constraints (limit max 100, offset) and the active-only filter, but does not explain behavior for out-of-range offsets, ordering ties, or whether limit clamps. It is honest but minimal.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose and pagination details with zero filler. The key information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers essential context: ranking basis, active-player filter, and pagination semantics. Nothing critical is missing for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains limit (maximum 100) and offset as pagination controls, which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema fields and defaults.

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 highest-rated players worldwide by current Elo, and specifies active players only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_players (search by criteria) and get_player (individual lookup).

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 implies usage for fetching global top player rankings, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but lacks explicit 'use this when...' guidance.

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