cricketdata_match_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: it reproduces the return shape, explicitly warns that the shape is unverified and approximate, advises inspecting the live payload, and states the API key requirement. This goes beyond redundant annotation repetition.

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 well-structured: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth are each distinct and front-loaded. Every sentence carries information, and the caveat about vendor documentation is important and honestly presented. 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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description covers the core purpose, input format, expected output shape, authentication, and an unverified-data warning. It does not mention error handling or live vs. historical match status, but the provided shape includes status/type fields, mitigating that gap.

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 coverage is 100% — the single 'id' parameter already has a clear description ('Match id (from a match list).'). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'One match: toss, venue, teams and result,' which clearly specifies a single-match lookup with a identifiable set of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cricketdata_matches (lists) and cricketdata_scorecard (detailed scorecard) by scope and content.

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 phrase 'One match' plus the example with an id implies the tool is used when you already have a match id (e.g., from a match list). The context is clear, but no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to sibling match-related tools.

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