cricketaustralia_tours

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

No annotations provided. The description includes the return structure (JSON with fields like competitionId, name, status flags), which adds transparency. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, authentication, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a return type specification. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 list tool without output schema, the description provides the return structure but lacks parameter explanations and any filtering or ordering details. Adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, but the description does not explain the two parameters (format, jsconfig) at all. Users must rely on defaults without understanding their purpose.

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 tours/series with status flags and groups competitions, and identifies it as the feed behind the site's series navigation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cricketaustralia_competitions by focusing on grouping tours, but it doesn't differentiate from all 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cricketaustralia_fixtures or cricketaustralia_competitions. No prerequisites or scenarios are described.

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