pointsbet_racing_featured

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, or any side effects. It only describes the output, leaving the agent unaware of critical operational aspects.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundancy. However, it sacrifices necessary detail (e.g., parameter explanation) for brevity, making it slightly too minimal.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the concept of 'featured,' how to use optional parameters, or the full structure of the return value beyond a partial example.

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 two parameters (raceCount, runnerCount) with default values, but the description does not mention or explain them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 across codes with a preview of their top runners' and provides a return format, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling racing tools like pointsbet_racing_races or pointsbet_racing_meetings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about selection criteria or use cases among the many racing-related sibling tools.

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