pointsbet_racing_featured

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

While annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adds that no authentication is needed and specifies the return structure, which provides useful operational context. No contradictions detected.

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, using three short sections for purpose, return shape, and auth requirement. Every sentence adds value and the structure is clear with labeled return and auth fields.

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 list tool, the description is fairly complete, including an inline return schema and auth status. However, it does not clarify what 'codes' means or what criteria define 'featured,' which could cause slight 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both raceCount and runnerCount fully documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns featured races with top runner previews, providing a specific resource and scope. The word 'featured' distinguishes it from general race-listing tools like pointsbet_racing_races, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 versus other racing tools. It lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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