cricketaustralia_runs_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return structure (innings array with fields like overs, overnightRuns, byesRuns) and stating 'Auth: none needed', which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions found.

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: two sentences plus a compact return example. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the return shape and auth requirement. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what the tool does, the return structure, and auth requirements. It does not mention the optional format or jsconfig parameters, but the schema covers those, so this is not a significant gap.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond mentioning 'per fixture', which maps to the required fixtureId. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 returns 'Run-progression (worm/manhattan) data per innings for a fixture' and identifies it as the data behind cricket.com.au's run graphs. This specific verb+resource+context distinguishes it from sibling cricket tools like scorecards, fixtures, and 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 when run-progression per innings is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to choose instead. Unlike the high-calibration example that names a sibling tool, this one lacks direct comparison, though the purpose is clear enough to infer typical use.

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