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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only nature, so the description need only add context. It adds that the tool returns purse and role-grouped rosters, but does not describe any edge cases, freshness, or constraints beyond that. An output schema exists, so return format does not need explanation here.

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 the returned content and ending with the one prerequisite. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is wasted.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and how to obtain the key parameter. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could mention tournament/year scoping constraints.

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 schema has full coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds real navigation value by naming the exact sibling tool (cricbuzz_auction_teams_options) that produces the required team_id, which the schema alone does not specify.

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?

Names a specific retrieval action and resource, and enumerates the exact data returned (purse, Batter/Wicket Keeper/All Rounder/Bowler roster groups). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like cricbuzz_auction_teams, which lists teams rather than one team's roster 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: team_id must be discovered via cricbuzz_auction_teams_options. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like cricbuzz_auction_info, but the context for correct invocation is clear.

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