faceit_getHubRanking

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 mentions the endpoint and return value but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. However, retrieval is implied, and no destructive behavior is indicated.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. No unnecessary information, 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?

For a simple data retrieval tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, usage guidance, and parameter details. It briefly states the return value ('Hub ranking') but lacks detailed return format. Overall adequate.

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?

The description lists the three parameters with their types, constraints, and endpoints. It adds value beyond the schema by specifying the endpoint path and parameter locations (path vs query), as well as defaults and ranges (min/max). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 retrieves the all-time ranking of a hub, using the verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'getHubSeasonRanking' by explicitly contrasting the two.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (all-time ranking) and when to use the alternative ('getHubSeasonRanking' for a specific season), providing clear context for selection.

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