sportsbet_cms_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover safety. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shape ({messages:[{id, type, text}]}) and stating that no authentication is needed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: resource scope, return format, and auth requirement. No fluff, well 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description provides enough context: what it returns, the data structure, and auth. It could mention error cases or pagination, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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 zero parameters, the schema already fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). The description is not required to add parameter details, and it adds no unnecessary information. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (sitewide CMS messages) and specifies it includes banners and notices, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. The return format implies a list retrieval, making the purpose clear enough while not being fully explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description—if you need sitewide CMS messages, this is the tool. However, no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, and the many sibling tools make some differentiation helpful.

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