get_leaderboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact: the tool returns structurally different results depending on whether user_entries is set (a list of leaderboards vs. ranked entries). It says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or the open-world lookup cost implied by the annotation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary resource and the parameter selector front-loaded; no filler. The parenthetical for user_entries is compact but slightly cryptic in isolation.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and 0 required parameters, the description is adequate on the core axis of what is returned. It is incomplete on pagination semantics (limit/offset) and on how the configured-user default interacts with user_entries, both of which an agent needs to call it correctly in the ranked-entries mode.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the game_id/leaderboard_id selectors and the user_entries flag, but leaves user, limit, and offset (pag ordering, max 500) entirely unexplained, and it is unclear to which mode pagination applies.

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 names the resource (leaderboards) and clearly distinguishes its two modes: a game's leaderboard list versus one leaderboard's ranked entries. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_game_rankings, which an agent could easily confuse with the second mode, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Give game_id or leaderboard_id" gives a concrete selector rule for which parameter drives which mode, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to get_game_rankings, and no note on whether the two modes are mutually exclusive or what happens if both are supplied.

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