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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/freshness profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-structured behavior - the no_matches sentinel for an empty schedule - but says nothing about pagination, live-data freshness, or failure modes beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the one edge case that matters. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the empty-result case is covered. However, for a tool whose only input is an undocumented slug, the description leaves the key operational question - what valid slug values look like - unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. 'Host-free slug' does communicate that the slug excludes a domain/host, which is real added meaning, but it never clarifies what the slug identifies (a sport like 'cricket', a competition, or a specific match card) or its accepted format.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('Sportskeeda cricket and football match cards or sport-specific schedule tables'), so an agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not name or differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as sportskeeda_college_basketball_schedule or sportskeeda_event_calendar, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for retrieving schedules, and no when-to-use/when-not or alternative sibling is named. The one piece of guidance offered is an edge-case caveat ('A genuine empty schedule returns no_matches'), which is useful but not routing guidance.

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