cricketaustralia_fixtures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description only explains the data returned, not the behavior of the call.

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, consisting of one sentence and a return structure example. It effectively communicates the core purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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?

The description provides the return object structure, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on pagination, error responses, or required authentication. For a tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions for 8 parameters. The tool description vaguely mentions filtering by competition and completed/live, but does not explain other parameters like year, limit, format, jsconfig, gameTypeId. This insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it returns a list of matches/fixtures with specific fields like teams, venue, competition, status, toss, and result. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., scorecards, standings) by focusing on fixture listing and including filtering options.

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 mentions filtering by competition and completed/live status, which implies when to use it (to get a list of cricket matches). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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