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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuine scoping context by clarifying that the payload is numeric graph series (runs, run rate, runs per over, win probability, innings, wicket markers) and that commentary prose is omitted — a useful negative disclosure. It says nothing about availability for completed vs live matches, which is the main behavioral uncertainty for this resource.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, what is excluded, and where the input comes from. Front-loaded with the primary capability and no filler.

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-value detail is not required, and the description covers content scope plus parameter provenance. It is a single-parameter read tool, so the remaining omission (live vs finished matches, empty-graph behavior) is modest rather than disqualifying.

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% and the schema already states the parameter is the canonical live-cricket-scores URL returned by /cricbuzz/matches, so the description's 'pass match_url from cricbuzz_matches' largely restates it. Baseline 3 applies; no format examples or casing note (the schema field is MatchURL, the description says match_url) are added.

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 ('Returns Cricbuzz's numeric match graphs') and enumerates the graph types included, which lets an agent tell chart data apart from prose-oriented siblings like cricbuzz_scorecard or cricinfo_commentary. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is an alternative to, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Pass match_url from cricbuzz_matches' gives concrete guidance on how to obtain the required parameter, which is real usage value. However, it never says when to choose this tool over cricbuzz_match_facts, cricbuzz_match_overs, or cricbuzz_scorecard within the same family, so the when-versus-alternatives dimension is only implied.

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