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 meaningful context beyond that: ownership is an estimated proxy based on credit weight, not real ownership data, and this is flagged as 'estimated: true' in the response. It also discloses that match_id auto-resolves team_a/team_b/venue and names the model source. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized with a front-loaded purpose sentence, an important estimation caveat, and clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every section adds value without excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy with schema descriptions is acceptable and aids agent readability.

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 prediction tool with five optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter dependencies, the estimation caveat, and the return shape. It does not discuss error cases or validation failures, but the annotations and schema provide enough structural safety that no critical calling context 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%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description largely restates the schema's parameter semantics, including the match_id resolution and ownership_threshold behavior. It adds little beyond the structured schema, though the return-field explanation does help clarify what the parameters produce.

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 clear purpose: 'Suggest low-ownership picks with positive projected upside,' naming the resource and the specific selection criterion. The caveat about estimated ownership further clarifies what the tool actually returns. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the low-ownership focus distinguishes it from value-bet and captain-recommendation tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like cricket_find_value_bets or cricket_captain_recommendation. The parameter dependency notes (match_id vs team_a/team_b/venue) are invocation rules, not selection guidance. The intended use is only implied by the first sentence.

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