entitysport_match_commentary

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses critical behavioral aspects: the response shape is unverified from vendor docs, includes non-ball events that need filtering, and requires a personal API key (ENTITYSPORT_TOKEN). These add substantial transparency about what the agent will receive and what prerequisites exist.

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?

Each section earns its place: one-line summary, return shape, filtering caveat, verification alert, usage example, and auth requirement. Formatting with bolded notes and an indented example improves scannability without padding.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return-shape sketch, an explicit warning about unverified fields, a filtering note, a JSON example, and auth guidance. This gives an agent nearly everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its response.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (matchId, inningsId) and even clarifies inningsId as 'iid from the scorecard.' The description adds an explicit usage example and clarifies the context (an innings's commentary), reinforcing the meaning but not adding substantial new semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Ball-by-ball commentary for an innings' — a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling: 'the reason to choose this provider over cricketdata.' This uniquely identifies the tool among the many data-provider tools.

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 strong usage context by naming cricketdata as an alternative and explaining why to choose this provider. It also gives operational guidance ('filter on `event` before counting deliveries'). However, it stops short of enumerating explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or other alternative providers (e.g., entitysport_match_scorecard).

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