cricketaustralia_scorecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed' and providing the return structure, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured return block. It includes only essential information: what the tool does, the return shape, and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes it easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by providing a detailed return structure. It also mentions auth requirements. While it does not describe limitations or error conditions, the simple read-only nature and the presence of responseError in the return make this sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema (e.g., fixtureId from cricketaustralia_fixtures, optional competitionId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Full match scorecard — per-innings batting, bowling and fall-of-wickets', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cricketaustralia_fixtures (list of fixtures) or cricketaustralia_runs_graph (a graph of runs), by specifying the detailed per-innings statistics.

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 implies usage by stating what data is returned (batting, bowling, fall-of-wickets), so an agent can infer it should be used when detailed scorecard data is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the fixtureId parameter.

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