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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds conceptual background about the metrics' importance but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as default perspective, data coverage, or output structure. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to add meaningful behavioral context beyond them.

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 and front-loaded with the core metrics, followed by a sentence explaining relevance. The second sentence adds value by clarifying rarity of data, though it could be trimmed; still, it is not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned, but it only states which metrics are computed without describing the response shape. Given the simple parameter set and read-only annotations, coverage is adequate but not complete; an agent might still wonder about format or default behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description echoes the bowler/batter distinction already present in the perspective field, but it does not enrich parameter meaning (e.g., how total_overs affects results). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 resource (bowler or batter) and the specific metrics computed (dot-ball percentage, boundary percentage, economy). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cricket_dismissals and cricket_head_to_head by focusing on rates that scorecards don't show, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 by explaining that these numbers are decisive in limited-overs games and not available on scorecards, suggesting when an agent might need them. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving alternatives unaddressed.

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