sportsbet_cms_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed' and a defined return shape `{settings:{}}`. It doesn't detail what settings or feature flags are included, but it adds meaningful behavioral information.

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 three short lines: purpose, return type, and auth. Every sentence is informative with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. This is a model of conciseness.

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 no-parameter settings read, the description covers purpose, return shape, and auth. However, without an output schema, the agent doesn't know the structure of `settings` or what 'feature flags' entail. The annotations indicate openWorld and read-only, which partially compensate. Overall, sufficient for the tool's simplicity but not exhaustive.

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 takes 0 parameters and the empty schema fully covers them. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 states 'Global CMS settings / feature flags' which identifies the resource, and 'Returns: {settings:{}}' clarifies the outcome. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate from other similar settings tools like nrl_application_settings or supercoach_settings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like sportsbet_cms_page and sportsbet_cms_messages exist, but no exclusions or references are given. The 'Global' prefix implies broad scope, but it doesn't tell the agent when to invoke this tool specifically.

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