get_dataset_summary

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

With no annotations, the description sufficiently discloses the return content (corpus counts, URLs, non-negotiables, license) and the tool's role as an informational starting point. No destructive behavior is implied, and the description is transparent about what the tool provides.

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 extremely concise (2 sentences) with front-loaded purpose ('First call'). Every sentence adds value, listing specific content and usage guidance 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 no output schema and low complexity, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (leagues, counts, URLs, non-negotiables, license) and its role in the workflow. Nothing is missing for an introductory catalog tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description's job is trivial. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context about the output instead of parameters, which 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 clearly states the tool returns CricketStudio's coverage (leagues, counts, URLs, non-negotiables, license) and positions it as the 'first call' to ground subsequent queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific leagues.

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?

Explicitly says 'First call' and 'Use to ground subsequent queries', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools imply specific use cases.

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