get_position_leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read/query operation implicitly but doesn't state return format, whether results are ordered descending, what the ranking metric expects, or whether ties are handled. For a ranking tool, stating that results are sorted descending by the metric would be valuable context that is currently missing.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key purpose clearly. It could arguably add a sentence about sorting or usage, but for its length, it's concise and 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, a required metric field, no output schema, and no annotations. Given these gaps, the description should compensate by explaining the return format (list sorted descending?), how ranking works, and whether certain metrics are only valid for certain positions. For a data-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description leaves too much to inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'top performers' context which implies the results are ranked, but it doesn't add details about the metric parameter format or how position interacts with metric (e.g., which metrics are valid per position). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Get top performers at a position for specific metrics' uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('top performers at a position') and scoping ('for specific metrics'). It clearly communicates a leaderboard-style ranking tool. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_player_stats or compare_players, though the 'leaders' framing does imply a ranking/top-N semantic that differentiates implicitly.

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 implies the usage context: querying ranked top performers by position and metric. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned (e.g., comparing against get_player_stats for individual stats). The absence of exclusions or alternative references means the agent must infer the tool's role from the 'leaders' name and description framing.

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