cricketaustralia_scorecard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the return structure (fixture with innings, players) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 with two sentences, the first providing a clear overview and the second detailing the return structure. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the return structure could be trimmed slightly.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fully documents the output but omits input guidance, usage context, and behavioral details. The output structure is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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%, yet the description fails to explain any of the 4 parameters (format, jsconfig, fixtureId, competitionId). It only describes the output, leaving the input semantics entirely undocumented. Since the description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, this is a critical gap.

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 provides a 'full match scorecard' with per-innings batting, bowling, fall-of-wickets, and players lookup. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cricketaustralia_fixtures (which likely lists fixtures) and cricketaustralia_players (player lookup).

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 for detailed match data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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