entain_racing_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a precise return shape, which provide useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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—two sentences plus a compact return sketch. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids any redundant or filler text, making every element 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the return structure and auth requirements. It covers the essential operational details for a simple search tool with two optional parameters, though it leaves some minor gaps around bucket contents or pagination.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters ('q' and 'category_ids'). The description mentions 'optional full-text' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 purpose: 'Racing search facets (barrier/country/jockey/trainer buckets); optional full-text.' This specifies a distinct verb ('search') and resource ('racing facets'), and the listed facets distinguish it from sibling racing tools like 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 provides clear context: this tool is for searching with facet buckets and optional full-text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the focused scope and returned structure imply appropriate use cases, earning a solid 4.

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