entain_cms_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations: the exact return shape ({sys, total, skip, limit, items, includes}), the auth behavior ('works without a key; ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set'), and the proxy path. This is the right kind of supplementary context and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four compact lines with no filler: the core statement first, then return format, a worked example, and auth. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it returns, whether auth is needed) appear immediately after the title line. Structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return structure, which is the main completeness gap. Auth requirements, a realistic example, and the content-type values are all present, and the pagination parameters are covered by the schema. The only notable omissions are error behavior and explicit differentiation from sibling CMS tools, which are minor for a read-only, fully-optional-parameter list tool.

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 documents all five parameters (skip, limit, order, include, content_type) with Contentful CDA references. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema via the example, which shows content_type and limit in a concrete call and lists real content-type values. This is at the schema-dominated baseline with mild credit for the worked example.

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 the resource clearly ('Contentful CMS entries') and scopes it to specific content types (promotions, major-event nav) plus the access path (www CDN proxy). The verb is implicit — 'entries' as a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'list/fetch' — but the example and return-format line make the query nature unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling CMS tools like sportsbet_cms_messages, tab_cms_call, and entain_graphql_call by naming Contentful specifically.

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 'Active promotions' example with a concrete payload ({content_type: promotions, limit: 20}) provides implied usage guidance for the common case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no mention of which sibling tools handle other entain CMS surfaces (e.g., entain_video_channels, entain_quicklinks_list). Usage context is inferable but not stated.

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