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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about how stands are reconstructed by segmenting innings at wickets, and explains a limitation of the archive (only striker recorded). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand data provenance and potential edge cases.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the output content, the second sentence explains the reconstruction method. No redundant words, and the most important information is front-loaded. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (runs, stands, best) and how the data is derived. It does not specify output formatting or sorting, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: both parameters (player, limit) are described in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does clarify the meaning of 'partnerships' and 'stands'. This meets the baseline for a tool with 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 what the tool does: it returns a batter's most productive partnerships, including runs added, how many stands, and their best. It uses a specific resource (partnerships) and provides detail, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to other cricket tools. The description implies that it is for exploring partnership statistics, but it does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool preferable. No exclusions or contextual advice is provided.

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