get_bbl_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sample-size floors (30 balls faced, 15 balls bowled) and that it returns a canonical URL. However, it omits details like error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, which is implicitly clear but not explicit.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loading the core purpose and providing necessary details without fluff. The topic sentence clearly states the verb and resource.

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 no output schema, the description does not fully describe the response structure (e.g., player names, stat columns), leaving some ambiguity. It covers aspects, season filter, sample-size floors, and URL, but lacks return field details.

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%, but the description adds value by enumerating specific aspect examples (e.g., orange-cap, purple-cap) beyond the schema's generic example, and explains context like sample-size floors that affect parameter usage.

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 it retrieves a BBL leaderboard for a specific aspect across seasons, listing examples like orange-cap and purple-cap. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the league and aspect scope.

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 mentions calling get_bbl_dataset_summary for the full aspect list, providing a hint for alternative use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other league leaderboard tools (e.g., get_ipl_leaderboard), leaving the decision to the agent's context awareness.

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