pointsbet_racing_hourly_quaddie

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Auth: none needed' and details the exact return structure including fields like date, hour, advertisedHourUtc, and races. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them, providing an agent with a clear picture of what the tool does beyond the safety profile.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose statement, then immediately provides the return format and a note on authentication, and finally adds a cross-reference. It avoids redundancy, every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool is) is front-loaded. This is an exemplary model of efficiency.

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 that the tool has no parameters, the annotations cover safety, and the output schema is absent, the description provides all necessary context: the exact return structure, the authentication requirement, and even an additional linked capability (tab_racing_jackpots). An agent can determine whether to call this tool and what to expect without needing further details. The description is fully complete for its scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The rule sets a baseline of 4 for such cases, and the description adds no parameter info because none is needed. The description correctly focuses on the return data, which is sufficient given the parameterless nature.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: an 'Hourly Quaddie schedule' with a specific focus on four-leg quaddie races grouped by hour. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other racing tools, and the name itself reinforces the intent. No ambiguity remains about what data this tool returns.

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?

While the description does not enumerate when not to use it, it provides clear context that it's for hourly quaddie schedules and even cross-references tab_racing_jackpots, suggesting an additional use case. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the cross-reference, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer its appropriate scope without confusion.

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