cricketdata_series

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations by disclosing that the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, advising to inspect the actual payload. It also mentions the API key requirement. This is valuable reliability information that annotations don't cover.

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 well-structured with sections for summary, return shape, notes, example, and auth. While it includes a detailed return shape, this is useful given no output schema. Each part contributes value, though slightly verbose.

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 with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what data is returned, the meaning of match counts, a caveat about reliability, an example, and auth requirements. Missing pagination details are partially covered by schema defaults.

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 fully describes both parameters (offset and search) with concise descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool returns series (tours and tournaments) with their match counts and dates. The example 'All series' reinforces that it lists series. It does not explicitly differentiate from cricketdata_series_info, but the scope is evident.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cricketdata_series_info or other cricketdata tools. The description offers an example and auth note but no usage context or exclusions.

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