entitysport_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds significant transparency: it discloses the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, clarifies the distinction between scores_full and scores, and states the auth key requirement. These go well beyond the 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 well-structured with line breaks separating the summary, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. The return shape is detailed but necessary given no output schema. Each section serves a purpose, though the overall length is above average.

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 no output schema, the description provides a full return shape, an authenticity caveat, a status example, and auth requirements. It covers all relevant aspects of using the tool, including the unverified nature of the payload, which is important for an agent to handle appropriately.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (date, paged, status, per_page). The description adds only an example using status=3, which reinforces the schema but doesn't add new meaning beyond what's already documented. Per the baseline, a 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 opens with 'Cricket matches — live, upcoming and completed', which clearly identifies the resource and the three match states. The return shape listing 'items' confirms it returns a collection. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Fetch', and does not directly mention alternative tools for per-match details, so it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling entitysport 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 example 'Live matches {"status": 3}' provides concrete guidance on how to request live matches, and the auth note tells the agent it needs ENTITYSPORT_TOKEN. The schema's status descriptions also contextualize usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of entitysport_match_info/scorecard/commentary, nor any exclusions.

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