puntersedge_racing_venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context — costs 1 credit, requires PUNTERSEDGE_API_KEY, and candidly warns the documented response shape is unverified against a live payload — which goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then the unverified caveat and auth/cost. It is longer than strictly necessary and mixes prose with structured notes, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 return shape, the meaning of venue_site (multi-track complexes) and spellings, the credit cost, the auth requirement, and a caveat on reliability. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No parameter-level guidance is needed or given.

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?

States a specific resource ('canonical venue directory') and enumerates what it contains (canonical id, multi-track site key, raw spellings). It also distinguishes itself from sibling racing tools by framing itself as the join key for spelling normalization rather than an odds/events endpoint.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when mapping stored historical data or reconciling vendor venue names against official sources that spell venues differently. It does not name explicit alternatives or state when NOT to call it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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