get_scout_rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'public' qualifier, hinting at accessibility, but discloses no further behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or default behavior. This is acceptable but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and immediately names the resource, though it is arguably too sparse to fully serve the tool's needs.

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-value documentation is less critical, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves a meaningful gap. Sibling context helps disambiguate the tool's purpose, yet an agent cannot reliably know how to filter results without more detail.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (week, scoring, position) or their allowed values. The agent is left to guess what 'PPR', 'ALL', or a null week mean. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a distinct resource ('public Scout rankings board'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools like get_game_scores or get_wire_news. It is clear but terse; it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though the unique resource name largely accomplishes that.

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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of how week/scoring/position filters should be used. The description states only what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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