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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context about dataset size, match count, competitions, cutoff date, and per-call granularity, and implicitly indicates a read-only query. It does not mention response format, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects, though the tool's read-only nature can be inferred.

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 dense sentences with every clause earning its place: the core function comes first, and the dataset-scale and date-cutoff details provide useful context without padding.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, output statistics, dataset size, and freshness. The only minor gap is that it does not spell out the exact response structure, but the listed fields largely compensate.

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 covers both parameters fully with descriptions and examples, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond identifying batter and bowler as the two roles.

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 names the resource—a batter's record against a bowler in men's T20—and enumerates the exact statistics returned. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'Retrieves' and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the data product is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from the other cricket tools.

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 scope (men's T20, specific leagues, cutoff date) implies when this tool is relevant, and there is no apparent overlap with sibling cricket tools. However, it never states when to prefer this over an alternative or provides any explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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