sportsbet_cms_page

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the expected return shape and the auth behavior, noting that a token is optional but unlocks more data. This is meaningful supplementary disclosure, though 'unlocks more' is somewhat vague.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then auth. Each sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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 low-complexity read operation with full schema coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the core invocation details, return shape, identifier requirement, and auth behavior. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify how the optional token changes the response or when to prefer related CMS tools, but this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds the important constraint that one of competitionId or pagePath is required, which the schema does not explicitly encode. It also gives context for what the returned page object contains, adding value beyond the schema.

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: a CMS page block, retrievable by competition ID or page path. It also states that exactly one of these identifiers is required, making the operation specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like sportsbet_cms_messages or sportsbet_page_content, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sportsbet_page_content, sportsbet_cms_settings, or entain_cms_entries. The identifier requirement is implicit usage context, but there are no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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