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 context: it states the return structure, that no auth is needed, and that it also fulfills two sibling tools. These are behavioral details not present in annotations, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 succinct and well-structured: it leads with purpose, then return format, example, auth, and alternative tools. Each line earns its place. The example and alternative note are valuable, though slightly longer than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description includes a return skeleton and an example, which helps an agent form correct calls. It also notes auth and alternative tools. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid race numbers or date formats beyond the example, but it is largely complete for a read-only tool with annotations covering safety.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described as 'Required — part of the URL path.' The description goes beyond by providing a concrete example (e.g., date format '<today>-am', meetingNumber as integer, raceNumber zero-padded), clarifying the expected format and usage. This adds meaning beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 it provides 'a detailed form guide for one race: tips, predicted order and per-runner history.' It names a specific resource (form guide) and the scope (one race). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it 'also answers' betr_race_form and tab_racing_race_form, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools.

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 mentions it also answers betr_race_form and tab_racing_race_form, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this when you need form for a specific race across these brands' or differentiate from other pointsbet_racing_* tools. Guidance is vague and left to inference.

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