entain_metadata_by_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context beyond those: the exact return shape, the empty-object behavior when no override exists, and the auth requirement (no key needed, optional token unlocks more). The phrase 'unlocks more if set' is somewhat vague but still discloses the auth gradient.

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 tightly structured: purpose in the first line, then return format, then auth. Every line adds distinct information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the no-override case, and auth requirements. The only ambiguity is what 'unlocks more' means when the token is set, but that does not block a basic correct invocation.

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%, with the parameter already documented as 'URL path, e.g. /racing.' The description essentially restates this in prose ('for a given URL path') without adding format details or constraints beyond the schema example. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'SEO metadata (page title) for a given URL path.' This precisely identifies what the tool returns and the input it operates on. It is clearly distinct from sibling Entain tools focused on channels, CMS entries, or quicklinks.

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 clearly establishes the scenario for use: when you need SEO/page title metadata for a URL path. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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