get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that no authentication is required and that the data is public, covering access control. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any potential side effects, though 'get' implies read-only. The description provides some transparency but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and a key usage note. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and that no authentication is needed. While it does not detail the exact return values, 'leaderboard' strongly implies a ranked list of websites, and the schema covers the limit. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema fully describes the 'limit' parameter with default and max values, so the description does not need to add much. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but the schema coverage is 100%, and the meaning of 'limit' is self-explanatory. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'public leaderboard of top agent-ready websites'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_url and bulk_audit, which focus on auditing rather than retrieving a leaderboard.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool: when the public leaderboard of agent-ready websites is needed. It also explicitly notes that no authentication is required, which is useful usage information. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, though the tool's purpose is distinct from its siblings.

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