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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by describing the payload (story IDs, titles, URLs, relative-age labels), what is deliberately excluded (global news/video sidebar), and the explicit empty-state sentinel empty_state=no_results. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return-shape and next-step guidance. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate fields in depth, yet it still covers return contents, exclusions, and empty-state handling. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% with detailed year/tournament enumerations, so the schema carries most semantics. The description still adds provenance (values come from cricbuzz_auction_seasons) and clarifies that both params together scope the result to a single edition.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'list only that edition's Auction News cards' scoped to a tournament and year. It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings (auction_videos, cricbuzz_news_story) by naming them explicitly.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('use this after choosing tournament and year from cricbuzz_auction_seasons') and the downstream step ('Pass a returned URL to cricbuzz_news_story for details and tags'), so the agent knows both when to call it and what to do next.

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