cricketdata_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the need for an API key and an honest caveat that the return shape is unverified from vendor docs, which is useful context. It does not contradict the 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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. The return shape, example, and auth note are all relevant, though the formatting could be tightened slightly.

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 read-only search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides an approximate return shape, an example, and auth requirements. It omits details about behavior when search is omitted and does not explain offset/pagination beyond the schema, but the provided information is fairly complete for basic usage.

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 describes both parameters (offset and search) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example using 'search' but does not materially expand on the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Search the player catalogue by name,' which identifies a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like cricketdata_player_info, but the search-by-name framing is clear enough for basic differentiation.

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 the core purpose and an example, implying that this tool is used when searching for players by name. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cricketdata_player_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth requirement.

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