cricketaustralia_teams

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the exact return shape (teams array with fields, responseError) and authentication requirement (none needed). This goes beyond annotations and is especially useful given there is no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded. It begins with the core purpose and fields, then gives the return structure and auth note in two additional short sentences. No fluff or 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 catalogue tool with no required parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, return type, and auth. Since there is no output schema, providing the return structure is essential and done well. No significant gaps remain.

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% for both parameters (format and jsconfig) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither enhances nor harms parameter clarity.

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?

Description states the tool is a 'Team catalogue' with specific fields (id, name, short name, colours, logo/badge URLs) across all CA competitions. The resource and scope are explicit, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling cricket tools like cricketaustralia_fixtures or cricketaustralia_players.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need team catalogue information. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident and no exclusions are needed for such a straightforward list function.

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