cricinfo_scores

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

With no annotation, the description carries the transparency burden. It does reveal key behavioral traits: it is a point-in-time snapshot, not a streaming or archive service, and it targets the public homepage. This implies a read-only operation with public data, but does not describe possible rate limits or pagination, which are minor for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 with no filler. The first sentence gives the core action, and the second sentence expands on what is returned and what it is not. Each clause conveys meaningful differentiation from previous concepts, making it compact and well-structured.

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?

The description gives enough context for a parameterless tool: it spells out what is returned (match state, scores, scorecard URLs) and what it is not (archive/streaming). It also places the data source as the public homepage snapshot. While it doesn't mention update frequency or staleness, this is not critical for a zero-input snapshot tool with no output schema.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior; it instead focuses on the output content, which is appropriate for a no-input tool. There is no ambiguity around how to call it because there is nothing to pass.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Get current Cricinfo match scores', and elaborates with the exact resource scope: 'match cards in Cricinfo's public homepage snapshot'. It explicitly contrasts with 'fixture archive' and 'streaming subscription', clarifying what it is not, which distinguishes it from sibling tools without naming them. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides a when-not guideline by stating this is a point-in-time feed, not a fixture archive or streaming subscription. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., cricinfo_match or cricinfo_commentary) for those cases, leaving the routing implicit. An agent must infer the intended alternative from sibling name patterns.

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