entain_racing_next_races

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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds useful context: it works without a key, ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more, and it returns category_race_map and race_summaries with specific fields. No contradiction with annotations. It does not cover pagination or data freshness, but the additions are meaningful.

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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, a concise return-shape block, and an auth note. Every line earns its place and there is no 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?

For a two-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately provides return structure, required fields, and auth behavior. The main gap is that it does not tell the agent where racing category UUIDs come from or whether there are limits on count, but these are minor given the schema and sibling context.

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 describes both parameters at 100% coverage: count as 'Races per category' and categories as 'JSON array of racing category UUIDs'. The description reinforces the grouping semantics but adds no new syntactic or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Next races about to jump, grouped per racing category' clearly identifies the resource and temporal scope, and the Returns line further specifies what is produced. It is distinguishable from sibling racing tools like entain_racing_meeting and entain_racing_racecard by the 'about to jump' focus, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 time-sensitive use with 'about to jump' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as entain_racing_racecard, entain_racing_search, or tab_racing_next_to_go. There are no when/when-not conditions or alternative routing.

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