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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data comes from ESPNcricinfo public feeds and Kalshi's live data, and scores are conditional ('where available'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about data source and completeness.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the data-source details parenthetically. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the subject (live/upcoming cricket matches), the conditional data field (scores), and the sources. An agent can call it without needing additional context about inputs or expected returns.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description need not explain parameters that do not exist, and it successfully communicates the tool's non-configurable, retrieval-style behavior.

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 identifies the resource (cricket matches) and its scope (currently live and upcoming, with scores where available), which distinguishes it from siblings like cricket_match_archive. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'get', relying on the noun phrase 'Currently live and upcoming cricket matches' to imply retrieval.

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 implies when to use this tool—when the user wants live or upcoming cricket matches and scores—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as cricket_match_archive or cricket_minor_league. The mention of Minor League Cricket from Kalshi's live data hints at overlap with cricket_minor_league, yet no exclusion or selection guidance is provided.

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