betr_grouped_racecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by detailing the return shape (grouped by Thoroughbred/Greyhounds/Trots with fields), providing an example, and noting that no auth is needed.

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 well-structured and compact: a one-sentence purpose, a return type definition, an example, and an auth note. Every part adds value with no redundant filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by providing the full return structure and an example, making the tool's behavior clear. It could mention edge cases like empty meetings or timezone handling, but for this simple day-offset tool it is essentially 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 input schema fully describes DaysToRace with offset semantics, and the description does not add new parameter meaning beyond a usage example. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 it returns 'all meetings + their races for a day offset, grouped by code,' with a specific return structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like betr_next5_races or betr_race by emphasizing the grouped, day-level scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description implies use for day-level grouped racecards, but it does not contrast with similar tools like betr_todays_races or entain_racing_racecard, leaving selection guidance missing.

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