get_t20wc_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds behavioral context like sample-size floors and edition coverage, but does not disclose authentication, rate limits, or whether it is read-only.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

The description mentions return of a canonical URL but does not detail the full response structure (e.g., ranking, player stats). For a leaderboard tool, this lack of output specification is a gap, though sample-size floors and edition coverage are helpful.

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%, and the description adds value by listing example aspect values (orange-cap, purple-cap) and noting the default limit. However, the schema already describes the parameter meaning adequately.

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's the cross-edition ICC T20 World Cup leaderboard for one aspect, lists specific aspects (orange-cap, purple-cap), and covers all 6 editions, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other 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?

The description implies usage for T20WC leaderboards via context of sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or provide exclusion criteria like 'use get_ipl_leaderboard for IPL'.

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