cricketaustralia_venue

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already establish the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the exact return shape ({venue:{...}, responseError}), which compensates for the absent output schema, and the auth requirement ('Auth: none needed'). No contradiction with 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 compact and well-organized: a purpose sentence, a usage note, a Returns line, and an Auth line. Every section earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before supporting details.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, the description is largely complete: it documents parameters (via schema), return shape (via Returns line), and auth. Minor gaps remain, such as not explaining when responseError is populated, but the overall package is sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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% — all three parameters (venueId, format, jsconfig) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('one venue per call'), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Venue detail for one venueId') and enumerates the returned fields (name, city, country, state, coordinates), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cricketaustralia_fixtures by stating it resolves a fixture's venueId one venue at a time.

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?

'Resolve a fixture's venueId (one venue per call)' provides clear context for when to use this tool — after obtaining a venueId from fixture data — and implies a single-venue-per-call pattern. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficiently contextual.

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