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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world; the description adds useful behavior by stating that results include video IDs, titles, durations, and page URLs, and that explicitly empty editions return empty_state=no_videos. It does not contradict the annotations and adds context beyond them.

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 usage prerequisite and then the return/empty-state details. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple read-only list endpoint with an output schema, annotations, and two fully described parameters, the description covers the prerequisite, scope, return shape, and empty-edition behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both tournament and year documented in detail, including valid values and their source. The description reinforces that both parameters come from cricbuzz_auction_seasons but adds no syntax, constraints, or other meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('list') and resource ('Auction Videos') for a selected tournament/year edition, and names the prerequisite cricbuzz_auction_seasons. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other video tools such as cricbuzz_video_playlists, but the auction scope is clear.

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 says to use this after choosing tournament and year from cricbuzz_auction_seasons, establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not name when not to use it or identify alternatives among video-related siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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