get_bbl_dataset_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the returned data (seasons, counts, leaderboard aspects, attribution) and clarifies the scope (men's BBL only). While it lacks details on rate limits or response structure, the behavior is simple and sufficiently disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key details, and includes usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and its scope. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool among many siblings.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.

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 tool returns a summary for BBL coverage, listing specific data points (seasons, match count, team/player counts, leaderboard aspects, attribution). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the 'first call for BBL coverage' and explicitly excludes WBBL.

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 explicitly says 'Use before other get_bbl_* tools,' providing clear context for when to call it. It also notes it covers only men's BBL, implying not for WBBL, though no explicit alternative is mentioned.

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