cricket_build_dream11_team

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: projections are model estimates rather than guarantees, default form source is neutral, the scoring profile is identified, and players lacking contest credits are excluded.

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 front-loaded and well organized, but it includes an Args section that duplicates the fully covered input schema and a Returns section despite an existing output schema. The example is helpful, but parts of the text do not add much beyond structured fields.

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 definition is complete for an agent to call it correctly: it explains the match_id-versus-explicit-fixture input paths, summarizes the return payload, notes model-estimate caveats, and provides examples. Given the rich schema and annotations, no important calling context is missing.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter meanings but does not add substantially new interpretation beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: recommend an optimal fantasy XI plus captain and vice-captain for one fixture. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like cricket_captain_recommendation and cricket_differential_picks, which cover narrower selection tasks.

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 the required input combinations, notably that match_id resolves teams and venue automatically while team_a/team_b/venue are needed if match_id is absent. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as cricket_captain_recommendation or cricket_differential_picks.

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