betr_race

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: 'results once run' indicates data changes over time, and 'Auth: none needed' clarifies access requirements. It also briefly exposes the return structure, which aids transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief return-type sketch and an auth note. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the input source, lists the return content (runners, prices, bet types, results), shows a partial return structure, and states auth requirements. No output schema exists, but the return sketch covers the essentials.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single `eventId` parameter, including its source ('from a races feed'). The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond mentioning EventId in the return type, so it provides no additional value over 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 the tool provides a 'Full racecard for one race: runners, prices, allowed bet types, results once run.' This is a specific resource (racecard) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like betr_grouped_racecard by emphasizing 'one race' and listing concrete content.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this for a single race's full racecard. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance, such as 'for multiple races use betr_grouped_racecard' or 'for form use betr_race_form.' The single-race scope is clear but no alternatives are named.

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