cricinfo_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the response includes stable story metadata, typed content blocks, live-blog entries when present, and related links, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the tool follows redirects, handles non-canonical URLs, or what happens for invalid/expired URLs. It also doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, though 'Get' implies it.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and then lists response components. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly tighter by removing redundancy with the schema's parameter description, but it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the input and the general shape of the output. However, it lacks details on error behavior, URL validation, and how the response is structured (e.g., whether content blocks are markdown or JSON). It is adequate but not complete for an agent that needs to handle edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical Cricinfo story, report, preview, or live-blog URL'. The description adds the notion of 'canonical' and the content types, but it largely mirrors the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Cricinfo story'), and enumerates the content types it covers (news article, match report, preview, live blog). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cricinfo_news, cricinfo_match, and cricinfo_commentary by focusing on the story object itself, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 description implies usage: given a canonical Cricinfo story URL, retrieve that story. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over cricinfo_news, cricinfo_match, cricinfo_commentary, or cricinfo_live_matches, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for a single-URL fetch tool, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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