get_league_leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as agents need more context to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. Every part ('Get MLB league leaders for a specific year and category') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral traits, detailed parameter semantics, and output expectations. For a tool with this complexity and minimal structured data, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that parameters are for 'year' and 'category (hitting/pitching)', which clarifies beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't detail valid year ranges, category options beyond examples, or default behaviors, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('MLB league leaders') with specific scoping parameters ('for a specific year and category'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_standings or get_player_seasonal_stats by focusing on league leaders rather than standings or individual player stats. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_statcast_leaders, which might overlap in purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to siblings like get_statcast_leaders for advanced metrics or get_seasonal_statistics for broader data. Usage is implied only by the parameters (year and category), with no explicit context or exclusions.

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