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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world search. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what each hit returns and by calling out that balls_remaining is null for rain-affected chases decided by DLS or similar methods.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then quickly covers return fields, gives a concrete example, cites the data source, and notes the Test exclusion. Every sentence contributes useful selection or interpretation information.

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?

Despite 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the returned chase fields and the null semantics for rain-affected matches. Combined with the full schema and annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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 the input schema already documents all 14 parameters, including enums and meanings for min/max wickets and balls remaining. The description reinforces the filter semantics with a concrete example, but it does not add substantial syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a compound search over the second innings of limited-overs cricket matches. It clearly distinguishes this tool from general match search by centering the chase, result, wickets remaining, and balls remaining, and it explicitly excludes Tests.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use this to filter limited-overs chases by outcome, wickets remaining, balls remaining, date, season, event, team, gender, and format. It also notes Tests are excluded, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as cricsheet_find_matches for non-chase queries.

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