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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the upstream page has no sort control, meaning results come back in a fixed upstream order with no ordering parameter. It stops short of noting whether the option lists are stable across calls or how large they are, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the returned payload front-loaded before the workflow and the caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information: what comes back, how to sequence it, and the no-sort limitation.

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 the return shape need not be spelled out, and the description still names the major payload components plus the input source and downstream consumer. The only minor gap is that it doesn't say whether the returned option values are exhaustive or should be treated as opaque strings to pass through verbatim.

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 100% and both parameters already document their upstream source (/cricbuzz/teams) and, for Category, the documented values. The description's 'Discover team_id and category from cricbuzz_teams' largely restates what the schema says, adding no new syntax or constraint details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and enumerates exactly what is returned: the Batting/Bowling stat menu, format IDs, year values and opponent IDs. It also positions itself against the two relevant siblings (cricbuzz_teams as the source of inputs, cricbuzz_team_stats as the consumer of outputs), so an agent can tell it apart from cricbuzz_team_stats without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit pipeline: discover team_id/category from cricbuzz_teams, call this tool, then pass its exact values to cricbuzz_team_stats. That both states when to use the tool and names the alternative to use once option values are already known, leaving little to inference.

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