cricketaustralia_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination behavior, the return object structure (pageInfo and content array), and that no authentication is needed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the agent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a return object example and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear return shape, pagination details, auth requirements, and content type explanations. It does not cover every interaction (e.g., default pageSize limits or tagNames behavior), but the schema documents these parameters sufficiently. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 all parameters with 100% coverage, including the contentType enum and defaults. The description provides minor additional context by clarifying what each content type contains (e.g., VIDEO highlights/replays), but it does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action ('content list'), the resource ('Pulselive CMS'), and the scoping by type (VIDEO/TEXT/AUDIO/PLAYLIST) with specific examples (highlights/replays, articles). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other Cricket Australia data like fixtures, teams, or standings.

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 retrieving paginated content lists by type, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., cricketaustralia_playlist for playlists specifically). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, so the usage context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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