cricketaustralia_teams

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only describes the output and lacks information on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. The return structure is given, but no behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, using two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope. The second provides a clear output structure. 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. The output schema is missing, though the description provides a reasonable representation. However, compared to similar tools, more details are needed for full context.

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 input schema has two parameters (format, jsconfig) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention or explain these parameters, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose and allowed values.

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 a team catalogue with specific fields (id, name, shortName, etc.) across all CA competitions. The verb 'catalogue' is implied as retrieving. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the name and content are specific enough to distinguish.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar cricket tools (e.g., cricketaustralia_players). The description is purely factual.

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