get_leaderboard

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

The description discloses defaults and aliases (e.g., 'week' for '7d'), which is useful. No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden; it adequately covers the tool's behavior for a read-only operation.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is concise 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?

While the tool lacks an output schema, the description covers input parameters thoroughly. It would benefit from brief mention of response structure (e.g., list of agents with rank, agent name, score). Still, it is largely complete for its purpose.

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%, and the description adds significant context: default sort, window alias, track default, and limit default. This enhances meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Top agents on Omniology' and specifies multiple sorting criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_history and get_winning_entries by focusing on aggregated leaderboard 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?

The description lists available parameters and their defaults, implying usage for leaderboard queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_my_performance or when not to use it.

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