cricinfo_commentary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only retrieval ('Returns') and indicates no special access is needed ('embedded in a public Cricinfo match page'), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose return structure, how `limit` affects results, freshness/caching behavior, or failure modes.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the action and return value, and includes only relevant URL-format guidance. No filler or redundant information; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, and which URL forms are accepted. Combined with the schema it is usable, but it falls short of a 5 by omitting any sense of default or bound behavior for `limit` and by not sketching the shape of the returned commentary.

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%, so the schema already documents both `url` and `limit`. The description's URL note ('may be a canonical full-scorecard or live-score URL') largely restates the schema's URL description and adds no meaning for `limit`. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Cricinfo match commentary' and clarifies what is returned ('latest ball-by-ball and editorial commentary'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cricinfo_match or cricinfo_scores, so it misses the top score but is clearly not ambiguous.

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?

The description gives input guidance about the `url` parameter but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cricinfo_scores, cricinfo_match, or cricinfo_live_matches. An agent must infer that commentary is the distinguishing use case; no exclusions or alternative-selection cues are provided.

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