pointsbet_racing_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: 'Auth: none needed' and the return structure. There is no contradiction with annotations. The added info is helpful and accurate.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a return shape, an example, and an auth note. No fluff or redundant content; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by showing the return structure (RaceId, RaceNumber, RacePreview, RaceTips) and a full invocation example. This is sufficient for a simple read-only tool, though it omits potential error cases or richer response details.

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 already documents all 5 parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds a concrete example with values like 'aus', 'sandown', '01', and '<today>-am', which helps illustrate the format and the date/session token pattern, but it does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Detailed form guide for one race' with the key contents (tips, predicted order, per-runner history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_tips (tips only) and pointsbet_racing_race (race info), and is reinforced by the returned structure.

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 scope is clear: this tool is for a single race's form guide. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., pointsbet_racing_tips, pointsbet_racing_race) or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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