get_world_record

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that world_record is the single fastest run, can be None for empty leaderboards, and that tied contains other place-1 runs. This is valuable because there is no output schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by the wrapper relationship and return semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only convenience wrapper, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the None case, the tie case, and its relationship to get_leaderboard. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond naming game/category in the purpose statement, which matches the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current world record (place 1) for a game/category.' It further distinguishes itself from get_leaderboard by framing itself as a 'convenience wrapper' that returns only the top-ranked run plus tie metadata. This is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly identifies get_leaderboard as the underlying alternative and implies this tool is the simpler choice for retrieving only the world record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the wrapper framing provides clear context for the common decision.

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