pointsbet_racing_hourly_quaddie

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, setting a low bar. The description adds value by disclosing 'Auth: none needed' and specifying the exact return structure with fields like date, hour, advertisedHourUtc, and races. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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: a one-line summary immediately followed by a structured return type and an auth note. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff or repetition. The most critical info (what it returns, auth) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description includes a full return type definition, making the tool's output completely predictable. The 'Auth: none needed' addresses the main access concern. For a simple read-only schedule tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 the input schema is trivially covered. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter complexity. The return format description compensates for the absence of output 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 'Hourly Quaddie schedule — the four-leg quaddie races grouped by hour' clearly states the tool's verb (schedule) and resource (hourly quaddie races). It distinguishes itself from sibling racing tools like pointsbet_racing_tips and pointsbet_racing_form by specifying the exact focus on hourly quaddie groupings.

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 implies usage for retrieving hourly quaddie scheduling information but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only schedule, but the absence of direct usage comparison to siblings leaves room for ambiguity.

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