get_t20wc_dataset_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It accurately states it returns summary data and is read-only. However, it does not mention response format or any potential rate limits, which is acceptable given the simplicity. A score of 4 is appropriate for a clear but not exhaustive disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence provides purpose and return details; the second adds usage guidance and scope. Efficient and well-structured.

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 parameters, no output schema, and straightforward behavior, the description is adequate. It explains what it returns, scope, and usage order. It could briefly mention why to use it (e.g., to get dataset context), but overall it's complete enough for the task.

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?

No parameters exist (input schema is empty), and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds context about the return values, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 is the first call for ICC T20 World Cup coverage, specifying the exact data returned (editions, counts, leaderboard aspects, attribution). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the scope (men's ICC T20 World Cup only) and directing to other get_t20wc_* tools.

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 'Use before other get_t20wc_* tools' and clarifies that it covers only men's ICC T20 World Cup, not bilateral series or women's WC. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, fulfilling the guidelines dimension well.

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