cricket_captain_recommendation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are estimates (meta.estimated: true), backed by a captain_score model, and match_id auto-resolves team/venue.

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 key one-line purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns structure makes details scannable. Minor redundancy: the Args section mostly repeats the input schema descriptions.

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 annotations, output schema presence, and clear parameter dependency, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about precedence when both match_id and team/venue are supplied, but this is not a critical gap.

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% and the schema descriptions repeat the same parameter semantics. The description clarifies that match_id resolves the other three arguments and that team_a/team_b/venue are required only when match_id is absent, but this is also in the schema, so the added value is minimal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the top-3 captain candidates ranked by projected points.' This clearly differentiates the tool from cricket siblings like differential_picks or player_form_index by naming captain selection and projected-point ranking.

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 a clear functional context—when you need captain recommendations for a match—and specifies the input path (match_id or manual team/venue). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over siblings.

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