cricinfo_venue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the page is public and specifies URL patterns, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential failures, or rate limits. 'Get' implies read-only, but more detail could be added.

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 core purpose, and the URL constraint is concise and essential. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it returns and the input format. It does not cover error cases, but that is not critical for this simple read operation.

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% with the parameter described as 'Canonical Cricinfo cricket-ground URL'. The description adds concrete URL patterns (canonical and legacy), providing meaning beyond the schema's generic description.

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' and the resource 'Cricinfo cricket-ground profile', and specifies what it returns: structured metadata, home teams, and editorial profile. It distinguishes from siblings like cricinfo_grounds (a list tool) and cricinfo_venue_matches by focusing on a single venue profile.

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 specific venue URL and provides URL format constraints, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling names like cricinfo_grounds and cricinfo_venue_matches suggest context, but the description itself lacks explicit routing.

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