cricket_get_pitch_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return shape: batting_friendly score scale 0..1, expected_first_inn, recommendation, venue, pitch_type, and meta.source. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary prose.

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 single-parameter read-only reporting tool, the description is complete: it explains the input, the output fields, and the meaning of score ranges. The output schema presence plus the documented return structure leaves little ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking this tool. No critical information 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% and the single parameter 'venue' is described identically in both the schema and tool description. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as disambiguation rules or formatting constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Summarise') and resource ('pitch characteristics for a venue'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is clearly distinct from sibling cricket tools like scores, squads, or odds. The one-line summary is not a tautology and accurately names the domain.

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 implies the tool should be used when pitch-related context for a venue is needed, and the venue parameter guidance is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or sibling tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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