sportsbet_multiple_racecards

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the response envelope structure and the auth nuance that a key is not required but a SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact lines cover the operation, return shape, and auth behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose 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?

This is a single-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema, so the description's inclusion of the return shape and auth requirements is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks details like maximum batch size or event ID format clarification, but nothing critical is missing for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references event IDs but adds no deeper parameter semantics. The schema's 'Comma-separated racing event ids' phrasing is slightly ambiguous against the declared array type, and the tool description does not resolve it, but it also does not need to compensate heavily.

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 identifies a batch racecard retrieval operation: 'Racecards for several races in one call (batch by event ids).' It also states the return shape, which distinguishes it from single-racecard siblings like sportsbet_racecard. An agent can confidently know what this tool does and how it differs.

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 batching use-case is conveyed explicitly ('several races in one call'), so an agent knows it is meant for multiple event IDs. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when only a single racecard is needed or when richer context is required.

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