cricinfo_series

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Returns', but it does not disclose pagination, freshness, or behavior for invalid or non-canonical series IDs. There is no contradiction, just limited extra disclosure.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, and the example is useful. The first and second sentences are slightly redundant ('schedule and standings' appears twice), but the overall length is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input format, provides an example, and states what the result contains. It falls shy of being fully complete because it does not clarify what the returned schedule/standings structure looks like or how it relates to sibling cricinfo schedule tools.

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 input schema already describes series_id as the slug-and-ID portion, and the description adds important value by specifying it must be the canonical URL slug and providing a concrete example: indian-premier-league-2024-1410320. This significantly clarifies how to construct the parameter.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('Cricinfo series'), and output ('match schedule and standings'). It is distinguishable from siblings like cricinfo_match or cricinfo_team_schedule at the resource level, but it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 usage for a series page and documents the required input format, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus related cricinfo tools such as cricinfo_team_schedule or cricinfo_calendar. An agent has to infer the right context.

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