fanduel_racing_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the exact response envelope and confirms no authentication is needed, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 concise: three short sentences covering the resource, return format, and auth. Information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple read-only message lookup, the description adequately covers the response shape and auth. Since there is no output schema, providing the return format is helpful. It omits edge-case behavior like error handling, but that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema with defaults and examples, providing 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline for high schema coverage 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 clearly identifies the resource as site message strings (disclaimers, informational copy) for a namespace and provides the response structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fanduel_racing_promotions and fanduel_racing_quicklinks, making its purpose unambiguous even without an explicit verb.

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 by stating what it returns, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with other FanDuel racing tools are provided, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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