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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the response flags a partial upstream window when the over data does not cover the whole match. That warning about incomplete coverage is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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?

Three compact sentences with the capability stated first, followed by the partial-window caveat and the parameter source. No filler, though 'serialized by Cricbuzz' is slightly redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the one parameter plus the important partial-coverage caveat. The only real gap is when to prefer this over the scorecard/match-facts siblings.

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 single MatchURL parameter is already documented as a canonical Cricbuzz URL. The description restates the source (cricbuzz_matches) but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 verb and resource: it returns the over-summary window and innings-filter choices for a match. It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic match tool, though the phrase 'over-summary window ... serialized by Cricbuzz' is jargon-heavy and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cricbuzz_scorecard.

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 input-sourcing guidance, which is useful. However, it never states when to choose this tool over cricbuzz_scorecard or cricbuzz_match_facts, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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