get_leaderboard

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds valuable behavior context: it states that players, subcategory labels, and category names are resolved automatically. This is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing pagination or response structure.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the purpose, the resolution behavior, and the subcategory-filter prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 a fully described 10-parameter schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: required game/category, optional level, and the workflow for variables. The main gap is not contrasting it with closely related leaderboard/list siblings, but the annotation and schema coverage carry much of the burden.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking 'full-game or individual level' to the level parameter and by explaining that subcategory filters require variable ids discovered via list_variables. This goes beyond the schema's bare 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource: a ranked leaderboard for a game/category, including full-game or individual level. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like get_world_record or get_game_records.

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?

It gives a useful workflow hint: for subcategory filters, discover ids with list_variables first. However, it does not explain when to prefer get_leaderboard over get_world_record or get_game_records, nor does it state any exclusions.

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