get_t20wc_team_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions scope ('Covers all 6 editions in CricketStudio corpus') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely just fetches data.

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 (two sentences plus usage examples) and well-structured. It front-loads the core functionality, provides concrete examples, and explicitly states exclusions. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, inputs, and limitations. It lacks details on the return format (e.g., JSON structure) but the explanation of what is returned (editions, wins, etc.) is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. Minor completeness gap due to missing return format.

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% for the single parameter 'teamSlug'. The description examples ('india, australia, england, west-indies') largely mirror the schema description. It adds marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides national team ICC T20 World Cup record with specific details (editions played, wins, losses, title history, top scorers, canonical URL). It gives example queries that illustrate its purpose and it is distinct from siblings like get_t20wc_leaderboard or get_t20wc_player_profile.

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 provides explicit use cases ('How did India do in T20 WC?', 'Who has won the most T20 World Cups?') and an exclusion ('Does NOT cover women's T20 WC'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, relying on the sibling list for differentiation.

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