cricket_get_live_matches

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context by documenting meta.source (adapter provenance) and meta.is_stale (stale cache indication), which are not visible from annotations or schema alone.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Returns section is clearly structured and provides just enough detail about the response shape without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only live-matches listing tool, this description is complete. It explains what data is returned (matches array with teams, score, status) and includes metadata fields that could affect interpretation (source, staleness). The annotations cover safety semantics, and the output schema is available, so no further detail is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly notes that it returns live matches 'across all series', implying no filtering is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return all currently live cricket matches across all series.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like schedule, scorecard, and points table by focusing on live matches. The scope is unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'currently live cricket matches' — an agent would know to call this when live match data is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better alternative for scheduled, completed, or match-detail queries.

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