cricket_player_form_index

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result is estimated (meta.estimated true), the score range is 0-100, and it reveals the underlying player_stats chain and adapter sourcing.

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 structure is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. It is slightly repetitive of the schema, but every included detail serves a purpose and there is no 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the score, trend direction, sample size, source adapter, and estimation flag, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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's Args section duplicates the schema's player_id description rather than adding new meaning such as examples, formats, or acceptable identifier variants.

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 tool's purpose: reporting a 0-100 form score for a player. It names the resource ('player') and the specific output ('form score'), which distinguishes it from other cricket tools focused on scorecards, matchups, or recommendations.

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 usage context is implied: call this tool when a numeric player form score or trend is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cricket_player_matchup or football_form_trends, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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