get_hero_rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return contains leaderboard scores and ranks, which hints at the output shape, but the description does not disclose any behavior such as ordering direction, result limits, pagination, or dependencies on search_dota_entities for name resolution. The disclosure is minimal.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the main purpose first and adds a clarifying parenthetical about the returned scores and ranks. No word is wasted; it is fully efficiently structured, with only a slightly below-perfect score because the parenthetical includes an unnecessary comma.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 param, no nested structures) and that the schema fully documents the only param, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the resource (hero), the scope (global top players), and the output (leaderboard scores and ranks). Minor lack is any mention of ordering or limit, but for a simple leaderboard query these are predictable to most agents.

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% and the single parameter, hero_id, already carries a rich description including usage example and a link to search_dota_entities for name resolution. The main description adds no parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully manages the parameter meaning.

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 states a clear verb-object: global top players on a hero, with the parenthetical clarifying the resource is a leaderboard of scores and ranks. This makes the purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely-named sibling get_player_hero_rankings, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the 'global' prefix and the sibling name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_player_hero_rankings or get_hero_players. The 'global' framing implies this is for the world-wide leaderboard of the hero, but this is left to inference; there is no explicit when, when-not, or named alternative.

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