get_match_state

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns a static snapshot from a bundled dataset and notes that live ball-by-ball is elsewhere, providing clear context about data freshness and scope. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and return values, followed by usage hint and a caveat. No unnecessary words.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data returned, related tool, and limitations. It is fully adequate for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema already describes the parameter 'matchId' as a numeric string or slug. The description adds value by specifying it's an IPL 2026 match and directing to list_fixtures for discovery, beyond the schema's type hint.

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 returns 'Result, scoreboards, and status for one IPL 2026 match' and lists specific data elements (teams, innings totals, toss winner, Man of the Match). It differentiates from siblings like list_fixtures by mentioning its use for discovering matchIds.

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 a clear usage hint ('Use list_fixtures to discover matchIds') and implies when not to use it (for live ball-by-ball, which is at a canonical URL). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools in detail.

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