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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the response preserves variable source columns in `headers` alongside normalized rows, plus the word 'bounded', but says nothing about pagination, limits, or auth beyond that.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return-shape note. No filler, though the return-shape sentence partially duplicates what the output schema already conveys.

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?

A 14-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain the filter dimensions, and it does not. The output schema does relieve it of return-value explanation, but the parameter surface remains undocumented, which is the biggest gap for correct invocation.

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 14 parameters, so the schema documents nothing about what class, type, view, orderby, span_min/max, etc. mean or accept. The description only gestures at 'selected statistic and filters' and adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving a large semantic gap it was positioned to fill.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Cricinfo Statsguru table') and scopes it to aggregate player or team stats, which separates it from siblings like cricinfo_match or cricinfo_rankings. It does not name a specific sibling to contrast against, so it stops 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?

'use it for aggregate player or team stats' implies the intended context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many cricinfo_* siblings. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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