cricketaustralia_tours

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: the exact return object structure, the meaning of status flags (upcoming/in-progress/completed), and an explicit 'Auth: none needed' statement. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences plus a return-type block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the output shape and auth, with no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only feed with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, data semantics, return structure, and authentication requirements. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and interpret the response confidently.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (format and jsconfig) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information or context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as returning tours/series with status flags and grouping competitions, and explicitly states it is the feed behind the site's series navigation. This resource-specific framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like fixtures or competitions without ambiguity.

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 clear context (tour-level feed for series navigation) but does not explicitly name when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives like cricketaustralia_fixtures for match-level data. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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