faceit_getPlayerRankingInLeaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an entry with position and score, and mentions the endpoint and parameters. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error conditions, which are relevant for a read operation.

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 and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose statement, then usage, endpoint, parameter list, and return info. It is slightly verbose with the endpoint line but overall efficient.

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, the description explains the return value as 'the entry with position and score', which is adequate for a simple lookup tool. It covers the essential aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 add meaning. It explains each parameter with its location, type, and role (e.g., 'The id of the leaderboard'). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though the schema already indicates required status.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource (player ranking in a leaderboard). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns a single entry rather than the whole board, and mentions the specific endpoint.

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 says 'Use to look up where a single player sits on a specific leaderboard', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools imply alternatives.

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