cricket_player_matchup

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

Description adds that results are estimated (heuristic model, not ball-by-ball), complementing annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) without contradiction.

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?

Concise with front-loaded purpose; includes Args/Returns sections. Slightly redundant with schema but not overly verbose.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, returns, and meta. Could elaborate on 'signals' but output schema likely handles it. Adequate given annotations and schema richness.

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 adequate descriptions. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

Clearly states the tool analyzes head-to-head matchups between two cricket players using role and career stats. Distinguishes from siblings like cricket_head_to_head (team vs team) and cricket_player_form_index (form).

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?

Implies use for career comparison via role and stats, and notes heuristic model, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or when not to use.

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