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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by noting the result is 'bounded' and that the response separates variable source columns into `headers` and normalized row objects.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The response-shape detail is appended efficiently rather than bloating the opener.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the caller without enough to fill the required `record`/`class` 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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: 'record category and filters' only loosely maps to `record` and hints the rest are filters. The meaning of `id`, `type`, `class`, and `current` is left entirely unexplained.

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 (Fetch) and resource (Cricinfo record table) scoped to a record category, and explicitly rules out a single match scorecard. That distinguishes it from cricinfo_match, though it does not clearly separate it from the nearby cricinfo_records_index sibling.

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 clause 'use it for Statsguru records, not a single match scorecard' gives both a when-to-use condition and a when-not condition. It stops short of naming the concrete alternative tool an agent should pick instead.

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