sportsbet_page_content

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it works without a key, an optional SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more, and it gives the return module shape. The phrase 'unlocks more' is vague, but for a read-only endpoint the added auth and output context is meaningful.

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, well-labeled sections: core purpose, return shape, and auth posture. It is front-loaded and has no filler, so every sentence earns its place.

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 full parameter documentation and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation: it names the tab scope, return structure, and auth requirements. It could clarify what 'unlocks more' means or how loggedIn interacts with the token, but these are minor gaps rather than blocking omissions.

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?

All three parameters are already documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds little about the boolean flags beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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: homepage tab content for sports or racing landing modules, and states the output shape. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Fetch' and does not name sibling tools to differentiate from, but the homepage-tab scope is specific enough to distinguish it from other sportsbet content tools.

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 implies when to use the tool—when homepage sports or racing landing modules are needed—and the auth note shows it can be called without a key. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., sportsbet_cms_page, sportsbet_nav_hierarchy) might be better suited.

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