tab_cms_call

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the upstream host, standard query defaults, jurisdiction override semantics, and authentication requirements/benefits. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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, organized into purpose, return, and auth sections, and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids redundancy with the schema and front-loads the core behavior before secondary details.

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 generic CMS feed call with no output schema, the description offers the essential context: what the operation values represent, where to find the authoritative list, how to override jurisdiction, and what authentication unlocks. It could provide more detail about the actual response shape, but the pointer to the catalogue and clear return type make it adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning by enumerating example operation values and explaining that query_params can override the jurisdiction default. It also clarifies the auth-related behavior of credentials, enriching the parameter context beyond the 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 description clearly states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('TAB's CMS content feeds from cmsapi.tab.com.au'), and the selection mechanism ('by operation name') with concrete examples. It is immediately distinguishable from generic sports-data siblings like tab_sports or other TAB 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: fetching CMS content feeds by named operation, and it points to a catalogue resource to find valid operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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