cricinfo_records_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state what the tool returns (catalog contents) and implies it's a read-only listing operation ('List' and 'Returns'). It does not mention any limitations, pagination, or side effects, but for a simple catalog index with no parameters, the behavioral disclosure is minimal yet acceptable. It could be improved by explicitly stating it is read-only and that no parameters are required.

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 is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action 'List Cricinfo records catalog.' The first sentence repeats the word 'catalog' but the elaboration adds value by enumerating contents and directing to the alternative endpoint. It is efficient with no extraneous fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently describes what the agent will receive (the catalog with its components) and how to proceed for specific tables. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool without further clarification. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact structure of the response, but that is not required since no output schema exists and the tool is a simple catalog.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none; it focuses on the output contents, which is appropriate. Since there is no schema to compensate for, the description doesn't need to explain parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Cricinfo records catalog', and further specifies what the catalog contains (match classes, record categories, selectable teams or entities, example suggestions). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling cricinfo_records by pointing to 'the existing records endpoint' for specific tables, so an agent can distinguish between catalog listing and table retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Use the existing records endpoint to retrieve a specific table', which tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to the alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state the conditions for using this tool (e.g., 'when you need an overview of available records'), but that is clearly implied by the listing nature. This is adequate guidance.

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