sportsbet_cms_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: auth works without a key, SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN can unlock more, and the top-level response is a settings object. It does not enumerate actual settings flags, but the added auth and return-shape context is valuable.

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 well structured: purpose, return shape, and auth behavior are each stated in a single explicit line with no filler. The most important information, that this is global CMS settings, is 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 zero-parameter read-only settings fetch, the description is nearly complete: it covers what the tool returns, that it needs no key, and that a refresh token can expand results. The main gap is that it does not list the actual settings or feature flags included, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. However, given the simplicity of the tool, this is not a critical 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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description appropriately frames the tool as global and unfiltered. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing here reduces that.

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 exact resource: global CMS settings and feature flags for the app, and even states the return shape as {settings:{}}. It is distinguishable from sibling CMS tools like sportsbet_cms_messages and sportsbet_cms_page because it names settings/feature flags. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', which keeps it from a 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?

Usage is implied: call this when global app settings or feature flags are needed. It also gives auth context by noting no key is required and the refresh token may unlock more. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling CMS tools or states when not to use it.

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