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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: this tool returns selectors that are prerequisites for cricinfo_records, telling the agent it is a discovery/step-one call rather than a data fetch. It does not mention pagination or whether the index is static.

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 list of returned content and followed by the workflow instruction. No wasted words, though the phrase 'records match classes' is slightly awkward and could momentarily read as a verb phrase.

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 need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on workflow placement. For a zero-parameter index tool with a named consumer (cricinfo_records), this is nearly complete; only a note on whether the index is static or cached would add value.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'returned selectors' and 'selectable entities' hints at the structure of what comes back, but no parameter semantics are needed.

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 (List) and a concrete resource: the record match classes, categories, selectable entities, and suggested questions exposed by Cricinfo. It also names the sibling cricinfo_records and explains the relationship, so an agent can tell the index apart from the record-table fetch without opening a 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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to choose the returned selectors *before* calling cricinfo_records, which establishes the sequencing and names the alternative tool. It lacks an explicit when-not case (e.g. what to do if you already know the table you want), keeping it below a 5.

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