pointsbet_racing_form

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (RaceId, RaceNumber, RaceName, RacePreview with PredictedOrder, RaceTips with Comment) and mentions 'per-runner history', 'tips', and 'predicted order'. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, data freshness, response size, or any potential limitations.

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 two sentences and a return structure inline. It is efficient with no filler, but the return structure could be formatted for better readability. Every piece earns its place.

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?

With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for safe invocation. It lacks parameter descriptions, value constraints, and explanation of return fields (e.g., what 'RaceTips' contain). The example is helpful but insufficient for comprehensive understanding.

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 0%, meaning no parameters are described in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (country, venue, meetingNumber, date, raceNumber) or provide format hints. The user is left to infer meaning, which adds no value beyond the bare 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 states 'Detailed form guide for one race: tips, predicted order and per-runner history.' It clearly identifies the verb (form guide) and resource (one race). While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pointsbet_racing_race or pointsbet_racing_tips, the focus on 'form guide' sets it apart implicitly.

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 an example ('Form for Sandown race 1') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. No exclusion conditions or context cues are provided.

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