fanduel_racing_promotions

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already establish the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior: it specifies the HTTP method (POST), the auth requirement, and the response shape. This goes beyond annotations, but it stops short of describing pagination or data details, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: three short segments covering purpose, response, and auth. Every sentence is informative and there is no repetition of structured data, making it a 5.

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?

The description gives the top-level response structure and auth info, but with no output schema, the nested promoPlacements object structure is left as ellipses. The body allows additional properties but no filter guidance is provided. For a simple default call, it's adequate but leaves some gaps, so a 3.

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 schema already provides a full description of the 'body' parameter with 'Optional filter body; {} returns the default placements', giving 100% model coverage. The description's 'empty body returns all' adds a slight clarification but does not substantially enrich the parameter semantics. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no compelling extra context is provided, so a 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 identifies the tool as returning structured racing promotions and placements, with 'empty body returns all' specifying the scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not distinguish itself from sibling FanDuel racing tools beyond the resource name, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 usage context by stating that a POST with an empty body returns all placements and that no auth is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, so this is a 3.

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