betr_race_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and provides the return structure, which enriches understanding beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations; it complements them with operational details. For a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 structured: a clear purpose, return type, auth note, and aliasing. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose helps an agent quickly understand the tool's scope, and the alias mention is valuable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, simple read-only behavior), the description is near-complete. It provides the return shape (even without an output schema), notes auth, and hints at alternative tools. No critical information appears missing. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits are not essential for such a basic tool.

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 already fully documents both parameters: EventId is 'Race event id' and RequestingRace is 'Upstream flag; leave false.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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's function: 'Detailed form guide for one race (runner history, comments, ratings).' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like betr_race (likely more basic) or betr_race_flucs (fluctuations). It also explicitly mentions returning a specific structure, which helps an agent understand what it will get.

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 when a detailed form guide for a single race is needed, and it notably lists 'Also answers this: pointsbet_racing_form, tab_racing_race_form,' which tells an agent this tool can substitute for those. However, it does not provide explicit conditions for when to choose this over other racing tools (e.g., when to use betr_race vs. this). No exclusions are given, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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