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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: newest-first ordering and a concrete 5-credit cost, both of which affect whether and how an agent calls it. It does not mention pagination behavior (default 50, max 500) or how expensive repeated paging becomes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the use case and scope, then the filters and cost. Every clause carries information — no filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 need not be spelled out; describing the row fields is slightly redundant but helps the agent decide applicability. With a single required parameter and clear scoping, the only meaningful gap is pagination and how the overlapping format/league/competition filters interact.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the description only restates the filter set as "format, competition or season" without resolving the ambiguous overlap between format, league and competition that the schema itself leaves murky. It adds the useful ordering note (newest first) that gives offset/limit meaning, but no guidance on how the filters combine.

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 ("a player's matches") and enumerates what each row contains — team, opponent, result, per-innings batting and bowling lines — which tells an agent exactly what distinguishes this from a pure stats tool. It never names or contrasts a sibling such as get_player_stats or get_matches, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a player's matches" plus the filter list gives implied usage, and the credit cost hints at when to be conservative. But there are no exclusions or named alternatives, which matters because the sibling set includes get_player_stats and get_matches where a per-match list versus aggregate stats versus all matches is a real decision point.

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