pointsbet_racing_meetings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by showing the exact return structure, noting 'auth: none needed', and clarifying the scope ('every code'). It does not mention potential large response sizes or pagination, but the annotations lower the burden; the added details go beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely efficient: two sentences, a return shape, a JSON example, and an auth note. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only necessary details. No wasted text.

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 output schema, the description includes the full return structure, an example, and auth requirements. For a straightforward read-only listing tool with clear annotations, this is complete. It also distinguishes from siblings well enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 clear ISO-8601 descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces this with a concrete example using startDate and endDate for a single day, demonstrating the expected format and usage. This adds practical clarity 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 clearly states the tool lists all race meetings (every code) for a date window, with nested races included. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pointsbet_racing_meeting' (singular) by emphasizing 'all' and the date-window scope.

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 a clear usage context (date window) and an example for 'all meetings for one day', but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other racing tools like pointsbet_racing_meeting or pointsbet_racing_races. It implies broad coverage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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