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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's real value is the edge-case disclosure: upcoming matches return an empty innings list, and live-score URLs are normalized to the paired scorecard. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields, though no auth or rate-limit context is given.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the empty-innings edge case, then URL requirements and the sibling pointer. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 explanation is optional, yet the description still orients the agent on payload, edge cases, and URL form. Only the absence of any failure or error-mode note keeps it from a 5.

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% and the schema description already names the URL type, but the description adds real constraints the schema lacks: the canonical series URL pattern and the full-scorecard vs live-cricket-score path alternatives, plus the normalization behavior. Worth more than the baseline 3.

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 (Returns) and resource (public Cricinfo match scorecard) and enumerates the payload (match state, team scores, innings totals, batter/bowler lines). It also names cricinfo_scores as the contrast, though that routing is treated more as usage guidance than purpose differentiation.

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 points to cricinfo_scores for current match scores, giving the agent a clear alternative. The when-to-use-this condition is implied (fetch a full scorecard) rather than spelled out as a rule, so it stops short of a full 5.

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