cricketaustralia_venue

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

No annotations provided, but the description transparently lists the return fields: venue object with id, name, city, state, countryName, latitude, longitude, and responseError. This covers the output and implies it is a read-only, non-destructive operation.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a return format line. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's behavior for a simple venue detail retrieval. It explains the return format, which is important since there is no output schema. Optional parameters are not detailed, but the main usage is clear.

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 description only mentions venueId as the key parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the other two parameters (format and jsconfig), though they are likely technical defaults. It compensates partially by clarifying the purpose of venueId.

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 it provides venue detail for one venueId, including name, city, country, state, coordinates. It specifies the action (get detail) and the resource (venue), and distinguishes from potential listing tools by emphasizing 'one venue per call'.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Resolve a fixture's venueId (one venue per call).' It implies this tool is for fetching a single venue's details, not for listing or batch operations. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives but context is sufficient.

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