entain_cms_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return format but does not mention read-only nature, authorization, rate limits, or side effects. The lack of annotations increases the burden; the description only partially addresses 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 brief (three sentences) but covers purpose, return structure, and an example. It is not unnecessarily verbose, though it could be organized better with bullet points. Still concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description lacks parameter usage details and does not clarify the tool's role among siblings. With no output schema, the return structure description helps but is not enough to fully inform the agent. The example helps but is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only mentions the return structure and an example, leaving skip, limit, order, include, and content_type unexplained. This forces the agent to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 clearly identifies the tool as fetching Contentful CMS entries for promotions and major-event navigation, providing a specific verb (returns) and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling CMS tools like entain_featured_slider or entain_quicklinks_list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example 'Active promotions' hints at a use case but does not provide decision rules or exclusion criteria.

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