sportsbet_cms_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only, error handling, or what happens when both parameters are supplied. Moreover, the description contradicts the schema by stating a parameter is required when the schema marks all as optional.

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 short and includes the return structure, but the phrasing 'one of the two is required' could be clearer. It is mostly 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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the loggedIn parameter, provide examples, or clarify behavior when both parameters are given. The contradiction with the schema further undermines completeness.

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 description adds meaning to pagePath and competitionId by linking them to the retrieval purpose and stating mutual requirement. However, the loggedIn parameter is unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 states it retrieves a CMS page block by competition ID or page path, and provides the return structure. However, it does not differentiate from sibling CMS tools like sportsbet_cms_messages or sportsbet_cms_settings, which could cause confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that one of two parameters is required, but this is a constraint rather than usage direction. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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