get_women_cricket_leaders

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

The description mentions 'sample-size floors enforced' as a behavioral constraint and implies read-only nature. With no annotations, it provides useful transparency but could add more detail on error handling or output format.

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 three sentences covering purpose, differentiation, aspects, and a behavioral note. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple leaderboard tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage, parameter details, and a behavioral constraint. Missing explicit output details but acceptable.

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 description lists all available aspects, adding concrete examples beyond the schema's single example. It also reiterates limit defaults, adding value despite full schema coverage.

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 provides WPL leaderboard data scoped to women's cricket, lists specific aspects, and distinguishes it from the identical sibling get_wpl_leaderboard by adding a gender signal for routing.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool over get_wpl_leaderboard when queries are ambiguous about women's cricket, providing a clear selection criterion.

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