get_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it's a read-only operation (viewing), but does not describe pagination, rate limiting, or whether it returns the full leaderboard or a slice based on limit. The description explains the scoring system but not operational behavior. This is inadequate for a tool without annotations.

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 paragraph that is informative without being verbose. However, it spends several sentences on the scoring formula, which is useful but could be seen as tangential to the tool's immediate purpose. The structure is adequate; it front-loads the purpose but includes extra context that is relevant yet not critical.

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 there is no output schema and few annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It explains the scoring system but does not describe the structure of the response (e.g., array of entries, fields), pagination via 'limit', or any additional behaviors. This is incomplete for an agent to predict the tool's output.

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 one parameter 'limit' is documented as 'Number of results'. The description does not explicitly mention the parameter or how it affects the output. It implies a leaderboard with potentially many entries, but the 'limit' parameter's semantics are not resonated with the description. This is a missed opportunity to clarify pagination or default behavior.

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 it views tournament standings/leaderboard and elaborates on the ranking metric (POINTS = dominion weight), distinguishing it from other kingdom status tools. It names the resource (leaderboard) and the verb (view), and adds specific detail about what is shown (territory, earnings, reputation).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_kingdom_status or get_all_kingdoms. The description implies it's for viewing public standings, but it does not state when to choose it over other kingdom-related queries. This is a clear gap since the tool is not obviously differentiated from siblings.

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