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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description still adds material facts the annotations cannot carry: a cost of 5 credits and a hard usage restriction on market data. It explicitly forbids deriving stakes, payouts or profit, recommending bets, or directing users to a sportsbook, which is exactly the kind of constraint an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

The scope statement leads, the payload inventory follows, and the cost and compliance constraints close — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler sentences. The middle sentence is a long comma-chained list of fields, which is dense but each item aids recognition of what the call returns.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values did not need spelling out, yet the field inventory reinforces selection against siblings. With cost, scope, safety profile supplied by annotations, and the market-data restriction all present, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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%: league is fully enumerated with a stated default of cricket, and match_id documents its source (get_matches or get_schedule). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does all the parameter work.

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?

"Use for one match in full" gives a specific verb-plus-resource, and the enumeration of result, toss, venue, innings, batting/bowling cards, ratings and market prices makes the scope unmistakable. An agent can distinguish this single-match detail tool from list-oriented siblings like get_matches or get_schedule without opening its schema.

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 for one match in full" clearly signals the selection context: this is the complete-match detail call, not a list call. It stops short of naming a when-not condition or an alternative such as get_deliveries for ball-by-ball data, so it stops at clear context rather than full routing.

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