get_my_leaderboard_standing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns null when the caller is not ranked, which is a key behavioral trait. The scope 'competition.read' is mentioned, indicating read-only behavior. It does not cover all edge cases but is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary words. It is highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the null-case return value but does not explain the structure of a successful entry. An agent may need to infer the output format from context. This is a moderate gap.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'for a competition', which weakly implies the meaning of competition_id. It does not provide details like format, examples, or constraints, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema's title.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves the caller's own leaderboard entry for a competition. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'leaderboard entry' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_leaderboard' which returns the full leaderboard.

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 provides implicit usage context: use to check your own standing. It mentions that null is returned when not ranked, which helps agents decide when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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