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 real value beyond them: it discloses that results are 'bounded' and that the response splits variable source columns into `headers` with normalized row objects, which is non-obvious behavior for a Statsguru scrape.

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 core action, and no filler. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining the response shape. Slightly compressed but efficient.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers purpose plus response layout. However, for a 14-parameter tool it says nothing about how filters compose, which combinations matter, or the role of the required class/type pair, leaving those to the schema alone.

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% across 14 parameters, so the schema already carries the meaning of each filter. The description only refers generically to 'the selected statistic and filters' and adds nothing per-parameter — baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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+resource ('Fetch a bounded Cricinfo Statsguru table') and scopes it to a statistic plus filters. It distinguishes the tool conceptually from siblings like cricinfo_records or cricinfo_rankings via the Statsguru framing, but never names a sibling, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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' gives a positive use case, but there is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is ever named despite many adjacent cricinfo siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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