entain_racing_next_races

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

The description adds the return format ('Returns: {category_race_map:{}, race_summaries:{...}}') and explicitly states 'Auth: none needed,' which are useful details beyond the annotations. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the bar is lower; the return shape and auth mention provide meaningful added context, though more details about time windows or ordering would push it higher.

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 appropriately concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by the return structure and auth note. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose, though it could potentially elaborate slightly without becoming bloated.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential elements: what it does, the return shape, and auth requirements. It lacks details on time window, ordering, or explicit alternatives, but these are non-critical for a straightforward list operation. It is largely complete for invocation purposes.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage: 'count' is 'Races per category' and 'categories' is 'JSON array of racing category UUIDs.' The tool description adds no further meaning to these parameters, so the baseline of 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?

The description states 'Next races about to jump, grouped per racing category' with a clear verb and resource, and it specifies the grouping behavior and return structure. It distinguishes itself from many racing tools by emphasizing the per-category grouping, but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar racing tools like entain_racing_racecard, entain_racing_future_markets, or betr_next5_races. The only usage-related note is 'Auth: none needed,' which addresses prerequisites but not selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess when this is the appropriate choice.

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