cricinfo_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does communicate that the operation is a read of a public feed and that the output is normalized, and it adds the official-URL restriction. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, response shape, pagination/limits, or any auth expectations beyond 'public'.

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 description is only two sentences and gets to the point quickly. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'Cricinfo RSS feed' in both sentences, but the text is overall lean, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no irrelevant 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to begin using the tool but not enough to fully anticipate behavior. It lacks information about the shape of the normalized feed, what happens with invalid URLs, or any limits/rate considerations. Since the output schema is absent, the description themselves should have said a bit more about what the returned feed contains.

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?

Although the schema already documents 'url' as an official Cricinfo RSS feed URL with 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful semantic content by enumerating the exact accepted feed categories: news, live-score, country-story, and player-story. This distinguishes a valid input and reduces ambiguity beyond the generic schema text.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Read a Cricinfo RSS feed') and specifies four allowed RSS categories: news, live-score, country-story, and player-story. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling Cricinfo tools, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling Cricinfo tools such as cricinfo_news, cricinfo_scores, or cricinfo_story. The only instruction is that the URL must be an official RSS URL, which constrains input but does not help an agent choose between alternatives.

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