cricinfo_calendar

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the calendar is 'currently published' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, paginated, or limited to recent dates, nor does it describe any potential delays or refresh behavior. This is minimal for a parameterless fetch tool.

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?

The description is concise, with three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. The structure is clear, but the second sentence about what is included could be slightly condensed. Overall, no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent but misses important details such as time period covered, format of dates, or how the calendar is structured. An agent would benefit from knowing whether the calendar is global or per-country, and whether it includes future matches only or also past ones.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds value by specifying the content of the output (match-day names and series labels), which is beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies due to no parameters.

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 the tool fetches the Cricinfo international calendar and specifies that it includes match-day names and series labels. It is specific enough to distinguish from other Cricinfo tools like cricinfo_squads or cricinfo_live_matches, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving the international match calendar, but it does not articulate when to use it versus alternatives like cricinfo_team_schedule or cricinfo_live_matches. It provides context (the return content) but no explicit exclusions or alternative naming.

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