cricketaustralia_players

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'batch' and lists return fields, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or error handling. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with result fields, then input requirement. Efficient, though bullet points might improve readability. No wasted words.

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 data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return structure and required input. Missing optional parameter details and error handling, but overall sufficient.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains playerIds (the required parameter) but does not describe format or jsconfig. Adds some meaning but not full coverage.

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 retrieves player profiles for a batch of player IDs, listing specific fields (name, DOB, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings that return different cricket data like competitions or fixtures.

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 instructs to pass a list of playerIds, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling tools to use for alternative needs. Context is clear but no exclusions.

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