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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it enumerates what the response contains (metadata, home teams, editorial profile) and constrains the acceptable URL forms. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a public read-only endpoint that's minor.

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 the return content, then the URL constraint, then the sibling routing. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool, the description supplies the input constraint, the return summary, and the alternative tool, covering everything needed to invoke it 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% and the schema already documents the single `url` parameter, setting a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'Canonical Cricinfo cricket-ground URL' by naming the two acceptable URL patterns (canonical /cricket-grounds/ and legacy /ci/content/ground/...html), which is real added meaning.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('structured metadata, associated home teams, and the editorial profile for a public Cricinfo cricket-ground page'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from sibling ground/match tools. The mention of the resource scope lets an agent tell it apart from cricinfo_grounds and cricinfo_venue_matches.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'Use cricinfo_grounds to list Cricinfo grounds.' This tells the agent to reach for this tool only when it already has a specific ground URL. No explicit when-not caveats, but the routing condition is clear.

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