get_leaderboard

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool always returns 200, uses cursor pagination, and clarifies how to check publication status via data.meta.published. This goes beyond a basic description.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose, no redundant phrases. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, pagination behavior, and a specific operational detail. Missing information on error cases and return format beyond meta, but sufficient for a listing tool given no output schema.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameter beyond implying pagination for limit and cursor. Competition_id is left implicit. The pagination detail marginally adds value, but not enough to compensate for the lack of explicit parameter 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 clearly states it lists published leaderboard rows for a competition, using the verb 'list' and resource 'leaderboard rows'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_leaderboard_standing and get_competition.

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?

Provides clear context: scope required, cursor-paginated, and how to determine if published. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but offers enough practical guidance.

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