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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds non-obvious operational context by disclosing a cost of 10 credits. It also defines what 'margin-free' means and pins the model figure to 'after the last ball bowled before' the snapshot, which prevents timestamp misreading.

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?

One front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Use to see', followed by a compact enumeration of what each snapshot contains and a closing cost note. It is dense but every clause carries real information; the enumeration could be tightened but nothing is 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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it usefully characterizes the join logic and the timing basis of the model probability. Missing is what an agent sees when a limited-overs match has no in-play snapshot coverage, and the test-league edge case goes unaddressed.

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% and both parameters (match_id sourced from get_matches, league with a full enum) are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only an indirect hint that the league should be a limited-overs competition, without stating the default or the test-match exclusion.

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 precise verb and resource: a joined view of in-play market price beside the model's win probability, ball by ball. It implicitly separates itself from get_odds and get_win_probability by describing the combination, though it never names those siblings, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

'Use to see...' gives an implied trigger, and 'limited-overs match's in-play market' scopes it away from pre-match or non-in-play queries. However, no alternative tool is named for when an agent wants only raw odds or only win probability, and the limited-overs scoping sits awkwardly against a league enum that includes 'test'.

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