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

Adds context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: the options are live, the defaults are IPL 2026 when no arguments are given, and the returned values are canonical and must not be altered downstream. It does not say what happens with an invalid tournament/year combination, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the output-and-handoff statement is front-loaded before the input sourcing and default rule.

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 output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the dependency chain plus default behavior are covered. Only edge behavior (invalid edition, empty option sets) is left unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup with a companion tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds value the schema lacks: parameter values are sourced from cricbuzz_auction_seasons, and omitting both parameters is a valid call with a defined default (IPL 2026). That default-resolution rule is real semantic content, not repetition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns the live filter choices (Country, Status, Team, Role, Cap, Sort) for one completed-auction edition. It is clearly distinct from its siblings cricbuzz_auction_seasons (which supplies the inputs) and cricbuzz_auction_results (which consumes the outputs).

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 routes the agent: take tournament and year from cricbuzz_auction_seasons, omit both to fall back to IPL 2026, and pass the returned values verbatim to cricbuzz_auction_results. Both the when and the upstream/downstream alternatives are named.

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