sportsbet_safer_gambling_message

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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact return shape ({message:{title, body}}) and stating that no authentication is needed, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, containing only three short statements (purpose, return structure, auth requirement). Every sentence is relevant, there is no padding, and the structure is cleanly organized.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the essential information: what it is, what it returns, and its auth requirements. It could optionally mention whether the message is static or varies by user, but for such a simple tool, the coverage is nearly complete.

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 for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not, making it appropriate for the simple interface.

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 (the site's current safer-gambling message block) and its return structure, distinguishing it from the many sports data tools in the sibling list. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the word 'Returns' to imply fetching, which keeps it just below top tier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no stated context beyond the inherent purpose. The description simply states what it returns, offering no practical usage direction.

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