get_cross_league_leaders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'gracefully omits leagues where snapshot data is unavailable' and returns 'ranked rows with league context per player'. It also lists supported metrics. This covers key behavioral aspects beyond the input schema. A score of 4 reflects good transparency without contradictions.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading purpose and examples. It is concise and avoids unnecessary detail. While it could be broken into bullet points for easier scanning, the current structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage examples, return format (ranked rows with league context), supported metrics, and behavior for missing data. It lacks details like ranking order or thresholds, but overall provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the enum values ('runs, wickets, sixes, fours, economy') but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (default limit, enum). Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics.

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's function: ranking top performers by a metric across all 7 CricketStudio leagues. It uses specific verbs ('top performers', 'returns ranked rows') and identifies the resource ('cross-league leaders'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ipl_leaderboard by explicitly mentioning 'across all 7 CricketStudio leagues' and giving cross-league query examples.

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 provides explicit usage examples ('who is the most prolific T20 run scorer across all leagues?') and mentions graceful omission of unavailable data. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the examples imply single-league queries should use league-specific leaderboards. This is sufficient for guiding an AI agent.

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