cricket_head_to_head

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it uses squad form and player stats, and explicitly notes 'meta.estimated: true' indicating the results are estimations/probabilities. This goes beyond the annotation schema.

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 with a clear purpose statement and structured Args/Returns sections. It adds necessary detail without fluff. A minor point: listing return fields may be redundant given output schema exists, but it helps quick comprehension.

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 the output schema exists (context signals), the description provides a useful summary of return fields and highlights the estimated nature. It adequately covers the tool's behavior for a read-only comparison tool. Could mention pagination or limitations, but not critical.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description essentially repeats the same param info without adding new semantics like format constraints or valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 compares two cricket teams head-to-head using squad form and player stats. It distinguishes from siblings like cricket_get_scorecard (which provides match details) and cricket_player_matchup (player vs player). The verb 'compare' is specific and resource is clear.

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 for comparing teams, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cricket_get_scorecard or cricket_player_form_index. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and description.

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