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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds that it returns 'normalized story metadata and typed content blocks,' which is largely output detail that the output schema already carries, and it discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes. Adequate but thin given the annotations carry the burden.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the purpose and scope lead, and the when-to-use cue follows. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It states purpose, input form, and usage context for a one-parameter tool, leaving only minor gaps around URL format specifics.

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 0% for the single 'url' parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds the key semantic that the URL must be a 'canonical story URL,' which narrows the input meaningfully, but it gives no format example or guidance on what counts as canonical, leaving the coverage gap only partially filled.

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 ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('Cricinfo article, report, preview, or live blog'), and the required input ('canonical story URL'). It also implicitly separates itself from the headlines-style siblings by naming what it is not ('rather than headlines').

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 final clause gives a clear selection condition: use it 'when you need the full story rather than headlines.' This contrasts with the headline-oriented sibling (cricinfo_news), though it does not name that sibling explicitly or state any exclusions beyond that.

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