sportsbet_cms_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable context: auth is not needed, the return structure is shown, and the required-parameter constraint is explicit. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradiction.

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, with the purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact return type and auth note. No wasted words or redundant schema 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately includes a Returns line showing the page and blocks structure. It could be more complete by explaining behavior when both parameters are supplied or error handling, but for a simple read-only tool with three parameters, it provides sufficient context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantics by explicitly stating that one of competitionId or pagePath is required, which is not captured in the schema (since no required parameters are listed). This clarifies the mutual exclusivity beyond the schema's own 'use this OR' hints.

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 the tool retrieves a CMS page block by either competition ID or page path, with a return shape included. It distinguishes itself from sibling CMS tools like sportsbet_cms_settings and sportsbet_cms_messages by focusing on page blocks.

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 explains that one of the two parameters is required, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sportsbet_page_content or other CMS-related tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions.

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