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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return content (teams, venue, innings scores, toss, winner), which is not in the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful behavioral context about what the tool returns.

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 description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists return fields, then gives the source for the ID. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It specifies the return fields and the source of the ID. No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return elements. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple get-by-ID operation, these are not critical. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and _apiKey) are already well-documented in the schema. The description's note 'Get the id from current_matches' repeats what the schema already says ('Match ID, as returned by current_matches'), adding no new semantic value. The description does not explain _apiKey further, but the schema already covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving full information and scorecard for a single cricket match by ID, listing specific return fields (teams, venue, innings scores, toss, winner). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like match_scores (which likely returns only scores) and current_matches (which lists matches), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Get the id from current_matches.' This tells the agent where to obtain the required parameter. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like match_scores, but the instruction implies when to use this tool (after obtaining an ID from current_matches). This is sufficient guidance for most use cases.

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