pointsbet_racing_tips

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the exact return envelope (date, racingType, venue, tips), the grouping by venue, the 'today' time limit, and an 'Auth: none needed' note. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not cover error behavior or link semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return shape block, an example call, and an auth note. Each element earns its place, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return structure and an example, which is essential. It also covers authentication and the temporal/grouping scope. Minor omissions like what the links contain or potential empty results exist, but for a simple read-only list tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: both 'racingType' (with enum) and 'country' are fully described. The description merely repeats these in prose and provides an example call, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Tipster selections for a racing code + country for today, grouped by venue,' which clearly states the resource, scope, and grouping. The return shape and example further clarify it returns tipster, venue, and link data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pointsbet_racing_meetings or pointsbet_racing_race, which focus on meetings or race details rather than tipster picks.

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 when to use it (today's tipster selections for a racing code and country) and provides a concrete example, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or a 'use this instead of X' statement, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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