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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world access. The description adds that items are normalized and that the source is a public Cricinfo feed/channel, implying no authentication, though it omits rate limits and error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by routing guidance. No filler, and the alternative pointers are compact.

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 simple one-parameter fetch, the existing output schema and annotations carry return-format and safety details. The description covers what it does and when to use alternatives, leaving only feed-discovery details unstated.

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%; the schema describes url as an official Cricinfo RSS feed URL. The description does not add format, discovery, or example details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: fetches normalized items from a Cricinfo RSS feed/channel. It names two siblings with their scopes, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the general-news and single-article tools.

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?

It explicitly routes general news to cricinfo_news and single articles to cricinfo_story, leaving this tool for a selected public Cricinfo RSS feed URL. The alternatives are stated with their selecting conditions.

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