get_psl_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sample-size floors (≥30 balls faced, ≥15 balls bowled) and that it returns a canonical URL. This is appropriate for a read-only query, though it could mention if any destructive behavior is absent.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose (leaderboard for an aspect), followed by details on aspects, sample-size floors, and canonical URL. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant information.

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 mentions the canonical URL but does not describe the return structure (e.g., list of players with stats). For a leaderboard, an agent might expect ranking information. However, the aspect list and sample-size floors provide useful context. It is mostly complete but could clarify output format.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the aspect parameter with examples, mentioning default limit (20) and max (100), and noting that season is optional. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 returns a PSL leaderboard for a given aspect across all seasons or a filtered season, with specific examples like orange-cap and purple-cap. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying PSL-specific context and referencing get_psl_dataset_summary for the full aspect list.

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 advises users to call get_psl_dataset_summary for the full aspect list, which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs that one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like get_bbl_leaderboard.

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