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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data provenance (ESPNcricinfo public feeds, Kalshi live data for MLC/Atlanta Open T20) and the honest caveat that scores are only present 'where available'.

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 front-loaded sentence whose parenthetical names the sources and the league-labelling convention. Every clause carries information, no filler.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the whole burden, and it does cover scope, sources, and the league-labelling/output framing. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note the return shape or freshness expectations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a param-less tool is 4. No meaningful gap exists here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: 'currently live and upcoming cricket matches with scores where available'. The live/upcoming scope implicitly separates it from cricket_match_archive, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it sits just below full differentiation.

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 timing scope ('currently live and upcoming') implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative sibling named for cases like historical matches or odds. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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