cricketaustralia_competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds practical context beyond those: an explicit return shape including the array of competition objects and responseError, plus the note that no authentication is required. It doesn't discuss rate limits or pagination, but for a simple catalogue this is sufficient.

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 and front-loaded: a one-line summary, a structured Returns section, and an Auth line. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition. It is exemplary in keeping the description short while still covering the key details.

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?

This is a simple read-only list endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema. The description provides the exact return structure, states auth requirements, and relies on annotations for behavioral traits. The only minor omission is any mention of result ordering or limits, but given the catalogue nature this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level detail, but the schema already describes both parameters: format as 'Response format' and jsconfig as 'Response-shape flag (leave default)'. The description's Returns line adds some context about the format, but the parameters remain adequately covered by the schema.

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 identifies a 'Competition catalogue' containing series/tournaments and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, url, imageUrl, startDateTime, endDateTime, order). The Returns line reinforces that this is a listing operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cricketaustralia_tours or other competition endpoints, but the tool name and content make the purpose unambiguous.

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: if you need a catalogue of competitions, use this tool. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives for related tasks (e.g., fetching fixtures or tours). There are no exclusions or prerequisites other than the positive 'Auth: none needed.'

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