tab_cms_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default query parameters and the ability to override jurisdiction, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, and additional context is provided without unnecessary detail.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main parameter, gives a use case for query_params, and cites a resource for more info. It lacks detail on path_params and return structure, but overall is fairly 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for 'operation' by listing valid values, and for 'query_params' by giving an example override. 'path_params' is not mentioned, leaving one parameter unexplained.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'CMS content feeds', and the source URL. It also lists specific operation names (homepage, offers, promotions, racing) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like tab_sports or tab_racing_race by focusing on CMS feeds.

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 usage for fetching CMS content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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