cricket_get_schedule

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: pagination semantics, default limit and offset, return shape for matches and pagination, and the meta.source adapter field. This is rich, non-obvious behavior disclosed clearly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are compact, each line carries needed information, and there is no filler or repetition beyond what is useful.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters, the description is complete enough: it explains filtering, paging, defaults, and what the response contains. The output schema is noted as present, and the description reinforces the key return fields without unnecessary detail.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters and their default/range semantics. The description repeats this information rather than adding new meaning. It clarifies the 'all active series' behavior for series_id, but this is also in the schema.

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 action ('Return') and a specific resource ('the upcoming match schedule'), with an optional series filter. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like cricket_get_live_matches and cricket_get_scorecard by focusing on future fixtures.

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 clear context: it returns upcoming fixtures, optionally filtered by series, and explains the default behavior when series_id is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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