cricket_captain_recommendation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it automatically resolves venue from match_id and details the return structure (data.candidates, meta). No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 4 parameters, no required, and output schema implied, the description covers the output format and essential usage. It could mention if the match must be live or upcoming, but overall it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds dependency logic (match_id vs. team parameters) not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3 by clarifying usage constraints.

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 'Return the top-3 captain candidates ranked by projected points,' which specifies the verb and resource. Among sibling tools like cricket_build_dream11_team and cricket_differential_picks, this tool's unique purpose 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?

The description explains the conditional dependency between match_id and team_a/team_b/venue, stating 'Required if match_id is absent.' This provides clear parameter guidance but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools for when to use this recommendation.

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