cricketaustralia_competitions

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. It only mentions the return structure, which is helpful but insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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: first sentence states the purpose concisely, second sentence details the return structure. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given no output schema, the description does specify the return object structure, which is helpful. However, it lacks examples, error handling, and parameter explanations. For a simple listing tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. The parameters (format, jsconfig) have defaults but their purpose and allowed values are not mentioned. The description adds no value beyond the schema for 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 returns a 'competition catalogue' with specific fields (id, name, dates, artwork). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cricketaustralia_fixtures, which likely return fixture data. The verb 'catalogue' and noun 'competitions' are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies this is for listing competitions, but does not mention when not to use (e.g., if you want a single competition by ID). Sibling tools like cricketaustralia_tours or cricketaustralia_standings exist but no comparisons.

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