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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: rankings are estimated, use default form 55 and opposition 0.5, ignore per-player history, and fail rather than fabricate on unsupported venues.

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: a one-line purpose, key constraints and caveats, then Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds useful information; the front-loaded limitation about IPL-only venues is appropriately placed.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all important operational details: venue constraints, failure behavior, default model inputs, tie behavior, return shape, and the estimated flag. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and interpret its output.

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 parameter descriptions already state the conditional requirements. The free-text Args section largely mirrors the schema, though it usefully reinforces the match_id-vs-team/venue dependency. No major parameter-level meaning is added beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the top-3 captain candidates ranked by projected points.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like cricket_differential_picks or cricket_build_dream11_team by focusing on captain-specific ranked output.

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 usage boundaries: IPL venues only, with explicit failure for Test/international matches and unknown venues. It does not name alternative sibling tools for those cases, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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