cricinfo_grounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does mention the output includes a directory snapshot and country index, which hints at the result structure, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it is strictly read-only. The word 'List' suggests a non-destructive read, but that is not explicit. Given the simplicity of the operation, a 3 is reasonable—some context is given but not full transparency.

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 two sentences, with the core action 'List Cricinfo grounds' front-loaded. It then efficiently adds what is returned and a pointer to the alternative. There is no unnecessary verbiage; every sentence contributes value.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what the tool returns and how it relates to the venue endpoint. It does not explain the full structure of the country index, but that may not be necessary for the agent to decide to call it. The lack of an output schema means the agent cannot know the exact response format, but the description provides enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 one parameter 'limit' with a description that is 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the 'limit' parameter, but the schema already documents it thoroughly. Per the baseline rule, since schema coverage is high, the description need not compensate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List Cricinfo grounds.' It also specifies what is returned (featured public ground directory snapshot and country index) and differentiates from the sibling cricinfo_venue by explicitly directing users to that endpoint for detailed profiles. This provides a precise, distinguishable purpose.

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 explicitly gives usage guidance: 'Use the existing venue endpoint for detailed ground profiles.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for listing and discovery) versus when to use an alternative (for detailed profiles). It also implies this tool is for broad listing, not specific detail.

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