fanduel_racing_promotions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It notes the HTTP method and empty body behavior but omits details on side effects, security, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. The description minimally discloses behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is a bit fragmented but efficient. Returns structure is provided.

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?

Missing key context: authentication, data meaning (what are placements?), potential filtering, and pagination. For a tool with no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 and one parameter (body) with 'additionalProperties: true'. The description adds only that an empty body returns all, failing to explain what properties the body can contain or how they affect results.

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 it returns 'structured racing promotions / placements', clearly identifying the resource. The tool name 'fanduel_racing_promotions' and sibling context (other Fanduel racing tools) help distinguish it, though the term 'structured' is vague.

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 mentions using POST with an empty body to return all, providing basic usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or any preconditions.

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