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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive safety. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the exact output fields (runs, balls, average, strike rate for each scenario) and the policy of excluding multi-day rather than guessing, giving the agent confidence about what it will and will not return.

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 the core purpose, and each sentence is information-dense. The second sentence provides necessary context about the exclusion without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (runs, balls, average, strike rate per scenario) and the scope (limited-overs, batting-first vs chasing). Annotations cover safety, so the description is complete 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (player and total_overs), with clear descriptions already explaining player name format and format restriction. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool's function: reporting a batter's batting record when batting first versus chasing in limited-overs cricket, with specific metrics (runs, balls, average, strike rate). The phrasing 'batting first versus chasing' and explicit exclusion of multi-day cricket differentiates it from sibling tools like cricket_player_career or cricket_phase_stats, even without naming them.

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 specifies the context (limited-overs cricket) and explicitly states when NOT to use it (multi-day cricket), citing the incomparability of innings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the exclusion of multi-day and the focus on situational splits clearly delineates its scope among the cricket siblings.

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