cricketaustralia_runs_graph

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the return structure and source ('the series behind cricket.com.au's run graphs') but omits behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second providing the return structure. It is fairly concise but could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes a detailed return object with fields, which is helpful. However, with no annotations and only one required parameter, it lacks guidance on optional parameters and usage context, making it minimally 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 coverage is 0%: no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description mentions 'fixture' but does not explain any of the three parameters (fixtureId, format, jsconfig). It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is only names and types.

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 run-progression (worm/manhattan) data per innings for a fixture, specifically for run graphs. It uses specific verb 'data per innings' and resource 'fixture', distinguishing it from other cricket tools like scorecard 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cricketaustralia_scorecard or other stats tools. The description only implies the purpose but does not provide context for selection.

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