betr_race_form

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds 'Auth: none needed' and describes the return object, which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't disclose potential latency or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a return type block, and a short auth note. Every line adds value, with the main purpose front-loaded.

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 provides a return shape summary and auth requirement, covering essential information. The simple two-parameter schema plus read-only annotations make this adequately complete, though a brief mention of alternatives would improve it.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (EventId and RequestingRace) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Detailed form guide for one race' and enumerates contents (runner history, comments, ratings). This distinguishes it from sibling racing tools like betr_race_flucs or betr_market_movers, and the return structure further confirms the single-race 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining a single race's form guide but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. 'Auth: none needed' clarifies prerequisites but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling form tools like pointsbet_racing_form or tab_racing_race_form. Score reflects missing explicit guidance.

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