faceit_getLeaderboard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and returns 'Competition ranking', but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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 about 6 lines, covering purpose, usage condition, endpoint, parameters, and return. It is structured and concise, though some lines could be more terse. No wasted words.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, when to use, parameters, and return type. It doesn't detail pagination or ranking format, but it's sufficient for a simple GET tool.

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 0%, and the description compensates by listing all parameters with types, constraints (min/max for offset and limit), and explanations ('starting item position', 'number of items to return'). It adds meaning beyond the schema, which only had defaults.

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 'Retrieve ranking' and the resource 'from a leaderboard id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_getGlobalRanking by specifying that a leaderboard_id is obtained from getChampionshipLeaderboards or getHubLeaderboards.

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?

Explicitly says to use when you already have a leaderboard_id from specific sources, providing clear context. Does not mention when to avoid using this tool, but the positive guidance is strong.

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