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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data source and license (Cricsheet, ODC-BY) and a granular account of what the response contains. It does not say what happens with an invalid or unknown match_id, which is the main residual behavioral gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating returned content and the data-scope/license caveat. Every sentence adds information: what it returns, which competitions are covered, and how to obtain the required ID.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, naming the batting-card and bowling-card fields explicitly. Combined with the coverage disclaimer for match formats and the ID prerequisite, 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already includes the example value and the pointer to cricsheet_find_matches. The description repeats that acquisition hint but adds no new meaning about format, type tolerance, or ID validity, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Full result and scorecard for one cricket match') and enumerates exactly what is returned: teams, venue, date, toss, result, plus per-innings batting and bowling cards. The scope ('Covers Test, ODI and T20 International cricket plus the IPL') and the singling out of 'one cricket match' clearly separate it from sibling tools like cricsheet_player_stats and cricsheet_head_to_head.

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 routes the agent through the sibling: 'Use cricsheet_find_matches first to get a match_id if you don't already have one.' That covers the prerequisite and the alternative for ID acquisition. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for aggregate player or head-to-head queries, which have dedicated siblings), so the exclusion side of the guidance is left implicit.

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