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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: ambiguity handling (returns a candidate list instead of guessing) and a data-coverage caveat. It doesn't mention pagination or response shape, but with no output schema the field list partially compensates.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then invocation, then the coverage caveat in four tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 only two parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, this description supplies everything an agent needs: return fields, name matching rules, optional format scoping, and the dataset's scope limit.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds matching semantics the schema doesn't state — case-insensitive substring matching against Cricsheet's short-form names and the ambiguous-name candidate list. That materially changes how an agent should construct the `player` value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (career batting and bowling aggregates for a cricketer) and enumerates the returned metrics, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like cricsheet_match, cricsheet_find_matches and cricsheet_head_to_head that operate on matches or comparisons rather than a single player's aggregate record.

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?

Explains how to invoke it (name or partial name), how to narrow scope (optional `format`), and states an important exclusion — it covers only ball-by-ball scored matches, not full careers. It does not explicitly route the agent to a sibling (e.g. cricsheet_match for a specific game), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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