Read the model leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: no API calls or network, highest-first ordering, and an empty-list result when nothing is saved. It stops short of describing tie-breaking or dedup semantics across runs.

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 tight sentences with the cost profile front-loaded, then behavior, then the empty-state escape hatch. No filler and no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and the description still covers the cost profile, ordering, filtering, and the zero-run case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the `plugin` filter's purpose but adds no format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions `limit`.

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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (best score per model across all saved tournament runs), plus the sort order. It also names a sibling (tournament_quick_test) in the empty-state case, so an agent can place it relative to the rest of the tournament family.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies (reading the aggregated leaderboard) and routes the agent to tournament_quick_test when no runs exist. It does not contrast itself with tournament_get_run or tournament_list_benches, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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