cricketaustralia_players

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact return shape and noting 'Auth: none needed.' Since the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, the additional return-structure and authentication context earns a solid score without needing to repeat safety flags.

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 efficient and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, followed by a concise instruction and a structured return example. It avoids redundant filler and every sentence serves a purpose (purpose, input, return, auth).

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 simple read-only batch lookup, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to specify input, the response format, and authentication. Minor gaps exist—no mention of batch size limits or detailed error handling—but these are not critical for the tool's straightforward use case.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions (format, jsconfig, playerIds). The description's 'Pass a list of playerIds' adds no new semantic info beyond what the schema states; it only reinforces the required parameter. No additional meaning is provided for format or jsconfig beyond 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 states the tool's function: 'Player profiles for a batch of player ids' and lists the specific fields returned (name, DOB, birthplace, batting/bowling hand + type, height, image). This specific verb+resource definition distinguishes it from other cricket tools that handle fixtures, scorecards, or competitions.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'Pass a list of playerIds' and explaining where those IDs come from: 'Ids come from a scorecard's players[] or fixtures.' This helps the agent construct correct calls, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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