cricketaustralia_standings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return structure and the fact that an empty response is possible for competitions without a points table. It also mentions a responseError field. However, it does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on invalid input, which is a gap for a tool without annotations.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence is somewhat dense with slashes, but it efficiently conveys the output fields. No unnecessary 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?

Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the complete return structure with all fields listed. It explains the condition for empty responses. It does not explain derived fields like 'deductions' or 'groupName', but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple data lookup tool.

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 has 3 parameters (format, jsconfig, competitionId) with 0% description coverage. The description only adds meaning for competitionId, stating it is required and that it may yield an empty result for some competitions. The other two parameters (format, jsconfig) are not explained, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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 returns a competition ladder with per-team stats (played/won/lost/drawn/tied/no-result, points, net run rate). It specifies the required competitionId and mentions behavior for competitions without a points table, distinguishing it from other standings tools among siblings.

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 context for when to use the tool (needs competitionId) and mentions that some competitions may not have a points table. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives among sibling tools like afl_ladders_get or espn_standings, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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