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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real behavioral context: unfiltered calls return the most recent matches across all formats, and results carry five specific fields. It says nothing about result-set size ceilings or pagination behavior beyond what limit/offset already convey.

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 and filter list are front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (return fields, default behavior, filtering advice). The em-dash construction is slightly dense but no sentence is disposable.

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?

All seven parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and with no output schema the description supplies the return shape itself. For a discovery/search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and chain into cricsheet_match.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the interaction between filters (all optional, at least one recommended) and the semantics of omitting them. It does not add format/syntax detail beyond what the schema examples already provide.

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 ('Search Cricsheet's Test/ODI/T20I/IPL match index') along with the filterable dimensions and the return payload (match_id plus date/teams/venue/result). It also positions itself upstream of cricsheet_match, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the downstream tool it feeds ('use this to discover match_ids for cricsheet_match') and describes the no-filter default plus the recommendation to supply at least one filter. It stops short of distinguishing when to prefer cricsheet_head_to_head or cricsheet_chase_search, which are close siblings in the same family.

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