get_wpl_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses sample-size floors (≥30 balls faced, ≥15 balls bowled) which is good. However, it doesn't mention response format, pagination, or error handling. The schema's limit description (default 20, max 100) is sufficient, but the description adds no further behavioral context beyond the sample floor.

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, no wasted words. First sentence gives purpose and examples; second sentence provides usage hint and constraint. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and constraints (sample-size floors) but lacks details about the return value. For an agent, knowing what the response looks like (list of players with stats) would be beneficial. Points to another tool for aspect list, which helps completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the scope (one aspect, filter by season) and mentioning the sample-size floor, which relates to the aspect parameter. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema 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?

Clearly states it's for WPL leaderboard for one aspect across all or filtered season. Lists example aspects (orange-cap, purple-cap, etc.), which distinguishes it from other league-specific leaderboards. The naming aligns with sibling tools like get_ipl_leaderboard, making it clear when to select this tool.

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?

Provides explicit context: call get_wpl_dataset_summary for the full aspect list, and mentions sample-size floors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_players or other league leaderboards. The league-specific naming helps but lacks explicit exclusions.

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