sportsbet_safer_gambling_message

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful auth behavior beyond the annotations: it works without a key, and SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks additional data. This is relevant operational context that an agent would not otherwise know.

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: the core purpose comes first, followed by the return shape and auth behavior. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the exact return shape, and auth requirements. It does not explain what 'unlocks more' means or describe edge cases, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotation coverage.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly adds no parameter-related details because there are none to explain. The return structure of {message:{title, body}} compensates for the lack of an output 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 phrase 'Current safer-gambling message block for the site' paired with 'Returns' makes it clear this is a read-only retrieval of a specific content block. The noun-phrase construction lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the return statement removes ambiguity. It also stands apart from generic siblings like sportsbet_cms_messages by naming the specific message domain.

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 by the tool name and description: an agent would call this when it needs the current safer-gambling message. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites beyond the auth note. The auth line provides some context but does not address tool selection.

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