cricketaustralia_fixtures

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the response envelope including responseError, which are genuinely useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 compact: a clear purpose line, a filter note, a return shape, and an auth note. The field list in the Returns line is somewhat dense but serves as a substitute for an output schema, so it 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?

Given 8 optional params, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description plus full schema coverage gives a complete picture of a read-only fixtures list. Minor gaps remain about default time ranges and pagination/limit behavior, but the overall context is adequate.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's filter mention does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as 'Match list (the /matches feed)' and enumerates the contained fields (teams, venue, competition, status, toss, result), making the resource and scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like scorecard or standings, but the feed-based framing is distinct enough.

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?

It states 'Filter by competition, completed/live, etc.,' giving clear context for when to use the tool and how to narrow results. It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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