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. The description adds the non-obvious temporal trait that results are a point-in-time snapshot rather than historical fixture data, which is real value beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about freshness or pagination.

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 sentences, both load-bearing, with the scope and the 'not a fixture archive' constraint front-loaded ahead of the alternative routing. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. Purpose, scope, and alternative routing are all present, making the definition sufficient for correct invocation; only freshness/update cadence is left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is added or needed.

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 (Fetch) and a precisely scoped resource (Cricinfo's current homepage match-card rows as a point-in-time scores feed). It explicitly contrasts itself against the sibling cricinfo_live_matches and cricinfo_match, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: cricinfo_live_matches for live-match status, cricinfo_match for a single scorecard. It also supplies a when-not ('not a fixture archive'), leaving nothing about routing to inference.

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