cricketdata_series_info

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing that the return shape is unverified from vendor docs and that the agent must inspect the actual payload before relying on field names. It also explicitly mentions the authentication requirement, adding significant behavioral transparency.

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 detailed but each section (return shape, caveat, example, auth) is essential. It's not bloated, and the structure is clear with returns, notes, and example separated.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview: return shape, unverified caveat, example, and auth. The warning about verifying the actual payload is crucial for an agent to use it reliably.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (id) with source context. The description adds a small example of the JSON payload, but this is redundant with the schema's 100% coverage. Baseline 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 this retrieves a single series with its full match list, using a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'One series' rather than a list tool like cricketdata_series.

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 clearly implies this is for when you have a specific series id and need that series' details and matches. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for lists of series or matches, but the context is clear and no exclusions are stated.

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