cricinfo_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the source is public and that the output is a bounded normalized table. However, it does not describe the returned table's structure, the bound/limit behavior, error handling, or how the optional parameters affect the result.

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?

The description front-loads the verb and resource, then gives the two key parameter constraints in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The required inputs and general output type are covered, and the example record path is helpful. However, because there is no output schema, the description should say more about the fields/shape of the returned table. It also misses a pointer to cricinfo_records_index for discovering valid record paths, and the numeric `class` values are not mapped to meaningful match types.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by providing a concrete example of the `record` path format (`batting/most_runs_career.html`) and explicitly restating the closed vocabulary for `class`. Optional parameters are left to the schema, but required parameters are well illustrated.

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 action ('Get') and a well-scoped resource: a Cricinfo record table from a public records page, with a normalized table as the return value. It also gives enough context (`record` path and `class`) to distinguish this from the surrounding generic Cricinfo tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like cricinfo_records_index, cricinfo_stats, or cricinfo_scores. The description explains how to format the parameters but not when this tool is the right choice, and it offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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