entain_racing_search

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, and the description adds useful auth context: it works without a key and ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more. It also discloses the exact facet output shape, going beyond the structured fields, though pagination and limits are not addressed.

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, with purpose stated first, followed by a brief Returns block and an auth note. The facet list appears twice, but the Returns line adds structural precision rather than pure 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 read-only, two-optional-param search tool, the description plus schema covers inputs, output shape, and auth. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit Returns block; minor details like how q interacts with facets are not explained but are non-critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description confirms q is an optional full-text query but adds no additional meaning for category_ids or any syntax/format detail beyond 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 names the operation ('racing search') and the exact facet buckets returned (barrier/country/jockey/trainer), making its purpose concrete. The 'Returns' block further disambiguates it from sibling tools like entain_racing_meeting or entain_racing_racecard.

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 this is for racing search with optional full-text filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling racing tools. It provides clear context but no exclusions or named alternatives.

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