pointsbet_racing_race

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that results and dividends are returned only after the race has run, and provides an explicit return structure, which is valuable conditional behavior context beyond the annotations.

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 clear sentences plus a compact return example. It front-loads the purpose and provides a structured output shape without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear return structure and conditional results behavior. It is adequate, though it does not elaborate on field meanings or error cases, which are not critical for this simple tool.

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 sole parameter raceId is fully described in the input schema, including its source and that it is a URL path parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 full racecard for one race, including runners, prices, track/conditions, and results/dividends once run. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like meeting-level or race-list 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?

It clearly implies use when detailed racecard data for a specific race is needed, and explicitly mentions 'Auth: none needed.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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