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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety properties. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing historical coverage back to 2008 and the shape of results: tracks with race counts or one track with all dates it ran.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the intended use. Every phrase contributes: the modes, the historical range, and the relationship to fanduel_racing_past_races.

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?

The description is largely complete for a four-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations. One gap is that all parameters are optional, but it does not explain what happens if neither date nor track is supplied.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the main parameter semantics for date, track, page, and limit. The description adds some meaning by explaining the date-vs-track result modes and the back-to-2008 range, but it does not add syntax or interaction details 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?

It states a specific verb and resource: list tracks with past FanDuel Racing results. It also clearly explains the two query modes, tracks by date or dates by track, and distinguishes this lookup role from the sibling past_races tool.

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 explicitly says to use it to find the dates and track codes that fanduel_racing_past_races needs, which gives clear routing guidance to the sibling. It does not state when not to use it or contrast with other track-related siblings, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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