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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine non-obvious caveat — that the archive stores a country's men's and women's sides under one name, which explains the gender parameter's purpose. It says nothing about limits beyond the default or rate behavior, but the added naming caveat is real value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields before the parameter guidance. No filler, though the second sentence reads slightly awkwardly and the ordering could be tightened.

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 compensates by naming the return fields (opponent, outcome, match event). All four parameters are documented in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving little an agent needs that 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description justifies the gender parameter by explaining the shared-naming model ('the archive gives a country's men's and women's sides one name'). That tells the agent why gender exists and what omitting it yields, adding meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Omit for both'.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource combination ('a team's most recent archived results... for reading current form') and enumerates the returned fields (opponent, outcome, match event). It is clearly distinct from data-heavy siblings like cricket_match_archive or cricket_head_to_head, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for reading current form' and by the instruction to pass gender/format for one side, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-sibling guidance (e.g., versus cricket_head_to_head or cricket_match_archive). The reader must infer the routing from the stated purpose.

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