tab_cms_call

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

Annotations already assert readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the specific endpoint, built-in query defaults (platform, os, jurisdiction, authentication-status), jurisdiction override capability, authentication behavior, and return type. This goes well 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 dense but well-structured: a direct first sentence, a helpful query-defaults hint, and clear Returns/Auth callouts. No filler or irrelevant content.

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?

With a single required param, annotations confirming read-only behavior, and no output schema, the description covers the key decision factors: endpoint, valid operations, dynamic query overrides, return shape, and authentication. The pointer to a catalogue resource fills the need for a complete operation list.

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 schema provides all parameter definitions, so the baseline is already solid (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that query_params can override jurisdiction, listing the standard defaults, and pointing to the operations catalogue for valid operation values.

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 the tool fetches 'one of TAB's CMS content feeds' from cmsapi.tab.com.au and identifies the operation names (homepage / offers / promotions / racing). This distinguishes it from other tab_* and sportsbet_cms_* siblings and describes a specific verb plus resource.

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 intended use case is apparent: fetch CMS content by operation name, and the description guides the agent to 'Read tab://cms/operations for the list.' It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it isn't a full when/when-not guide.

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