get_wpl_dataset_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses returned data types and Cricsheet attribution, and implies read-only nature. However, does not mention authentication or rate limits, and 'leaderboard aspects' is vague.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose ('First call for WPL coverage'), no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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, description lists main return components (seasons, counts, leaderboard, attribution) and usage instructions. Tool has no parameters, so content is sufficient. Minor gap: doesn't specify if output is a single object or list, but inferred as summary object.

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, schema coverage 100% (trivially). Baseline 4 applies; description adds no parameter info, 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?

Describes specific verb 'returns' for WPL dataset summary, lists contents (seasons, counts, leaderboard, attribution). Distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use before other get_wpl_* tools' and explicitly excluding other women's competitions.

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?

States 'First call for WPL coverage' and 'Use before other get_wpl_* tools', providing clear context. Also notes what it does NOT cover (WBBL, CPL Women, etc.), helping agent avoid misuse. Does not explicitly name alternative tools for other leagues but negation suffices.

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