fanduel_racing_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format but does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires special permissions. The behavior of fetching messages is implied to be safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, consisting of two sentences with a clear return format. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of each parameter, provide examples, or discuss error handling. The description only covers the high-level purpose and return structure, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only refers to 'namespace' indirectly but does not explain the purpose or allowed values of any parameter (brand, device, product, namespace). This is a critical gap, as the description adds almost no value beyond the parameter names.

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 that the tool returns 'site message strings (disclaimers, informational copy) for a namespace.' It specifies the resource (strings) and the context (a namespace), which provides a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fanduel_racing_promotions or fanduel_racing_quicklinks, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without indicating scenarios where it is appropriate or inappropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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