sportsbet_cms_messages

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, and the description goes beyond those by explaining that no API key is required and that an optional SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN can unlock more data. It also specifies the response contract, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 composed of three compact, purposeful segments: purpose, return shape, and authentication behavior. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no 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 zero-parameter read-only tool, this is complete: it states what data is returned, its basic shape, and the authentication behavior. The annotations contribute safety and idempotency context, and no output schema exists, so the described return shape is especially important.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms no properties, so detailed parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description's return shape adds some useful context but does not need to compensate for missing parameter meaning, giving the parameterless baseline of 4.

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 resource as 'Sitewide CMS messages (banners, notices)' and states the return shape, making the operation obvious despite not using an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. The phrase 'sitewide messages' also distinguishes this from sibling CMS tools such as sportsbet_cms_page and sportsbet_cms_settings.

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 intended usage is implied by naming the exact content type: sitewide CMS banners and notices. However, it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over related CMS siblings or when not to use it.

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