cricinfo_venue_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that data comes from a public Cricinfo ground page, that it returns only upcoming fixtures and recent results, and it requires a canonical URL. This is reasonable transparency for a read-only retrieval tool, and there is no contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the return scope, and the URL constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb ('Get') and contains 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the URL should be and what type of results will come back. It does not specify the exact output structure or behavior for an invalid URL, but the level of detail is adequate for this simple operation.

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 parameter is already documented. The description adds value by specifying the exact URL pattern must be `https://www.cricinfo.com/cricket-grounds/...`, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent pick a valid input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Cricinfo venue') and clearly defines the data returned ('upcoming fixtures and recent results'). It does not explicitly mention sibling tools, but the focus on matches distinguishes it from related Cricinfo tools like cricinfo_venue.

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 context—pull upcoming fixtures and recent results from a Cricinfo ground page—and adds a clear URL requirement. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cricinfo_venue or cricinfo_grounds, nor does it phrase when-not-to-use.

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