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 structurally. The description adds that the response keeps variable source columns in `headers` plus normalized row objects and that the table is 'bounded', which is useful behavioral context, but since an output schema exists the return-shape detail is partly redundant.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and the second sentence carries the response-shape and disambiguation info. Efficient with no obvious filler, though the response-format clause is slightly heavy given an output schema exists.

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 annotations covering safety, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description's job is scoping and disambiguation, which it largely delivers. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the explicit sibling name is missing.

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% for all five parameters, so the schema already documents `record`, `class`, `id`, `type`, and `current`. The description's 'selected record category and filters' loosely gestures at these but adds no syntax, allowed values, or semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('Cricinfo record table') scoped to a record category and filters, and explicitly contrasts it with a single match scorecard. The mention of 'Statsguru records' narrows the domain, though it doesn't name the sibling tools (e.g. cricinfo_match, cricinfo_records_index) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 Statsguru records, not a single match scorecard' gives an explicit when/when-not boundary, routing the agent away from the match-scorecard tools. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool to call instead, so the routing is implied rather than fully closed.

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