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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the option sets are edition-specific rather than universal, implying values must not be guessed or reused across editions. It does not discuss failure behavior for invalid tournament/year pairs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 what is returned, followed by the workflow instruction. No restated tool name, no filler.

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?

Enumerates what the menus contain, names the upstream and downstream tools, and an output schema exists to describe the response shape. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and use the result.

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 parameter documentation is already complete (including defaults and valid edition lists). The description still adds semantic value by tying both parameters to their authoritative source and stressing exact-match usage, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 (Returns) and a precise resource: edition-specific Country, Role, Cap and Sort menus from the Unauctioned auction tab. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling helpers like cricbuzz_auction_options, cricbuzz_auction_teams_options, and cricbuzz_auction_upcoming.

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 names the prerequisite source (tournament and year from cricbuzz_auction_seasons) and the downstream consumer (use the exact values returned here with cricbuzz_auction_upcoming). This is a complete before/after routing instruction, leaving little to inference.

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