cricket_get_points_table

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by describing the return contract: rows with team, P, W, L, NRR, Points, and meta.source indicating which adapter served the data. This goes beyond the annotation-only picture without contradicting it.

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 core statement is concise and front-loaded, and the Returns section adds useful behavioral detail. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length and structure remain clean and scannable.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what data the caller receives and which adapter produced it. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly 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 description's Args section merely restates the schema's series_id description. It adds no additional parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Return the points table / standings for a cricket series,' which states a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling standings tools like football_get_standings and f1_get_standings by specifying 'cricket' and '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 establishes when to use it: when a cricket series points table is needed, with a series_id provided. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but among the cricket sibling tools there is no overlapping standings tool, so the practical ambiguity is low.

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