list_atomic_claims

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

Discloses that results include provenance, sample size, and canonicalUrl, and that the corpus is the full IPL 2026 set. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Does not mention pagination or ordering, but overall transparent.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and return type, second gives examples and filter options. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers filterable fields, example queries, and result characteristics. Could mention default limit or sorting order. No output schema, so description partially compensates but could be richer.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). Description adds value by clarifying filter criteria ('team code or name', 'player name or slug') and providing examples that illustrate usage of pillar and player. Limit param not mentioned in description but schema covers it.

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 performs filtered queries across atomic claims, specifies the resource (IPL 2026 atomic-claim corpus), and provides concrete example questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ipl_leaderboard (aggregate stats) and get_player_profile (player details).

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 states filter options (player name, team code, pillar) and provides example queries, implying when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context and sibling tool names make it clear.

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