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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations: it names the upstream feed (Kalshi public live data), the precise time window, the win-chance semantics (midpoint only when the book is a real price, model only during the chase), known limitations (no ball-by-ball, no batters or bowlers), and fallback behavior ('If nothing is on, it says when the next game is').

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns and its data source before caveats. It is a single long paragraph whose clauses all carry information, though it could be split for 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: each game's state, start time (ET), score, chase requirement or result, and win chances. Failure mode (nothing on) and coverage limits are also stated, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% for the single 'team' parameter, so the schema already carries the full matching semantics (full or partial name, omit for all games). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Scores and win chances for Minor League Cricket... from Kalshi's public live data,' with the exact data source named. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cricket_minor_league_info, which owns history, teams, grounds and players.

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?

Clear inclusion conditions are given (live, starting within 3 hours, or finished in the last 2 hours) plus the routing rule to cricket_minor_league_info. It does not explicitly contrast with other live/odds siblings like cricket_live_matches or cricket_market_odds, so exclusions are partial.

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