sportsbet_race_preview

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that auth is not needed and specifies the return object shape, which is extra context. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, null cases, or other limitations, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, return structure, and auth. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, contained no fluff, and every line adds needed information.

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 simple read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, return format, and auth. Combined with complete schema descriptions and annotations, it is nearly complete. It lacks any mention of when the preview might be unavailable, but that is a minor gap.

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 all four parameters (raceType, trackName, raceNumber, eventDate) already described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 provides an 'Editorial race preview (text + video) for one race,' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like racecards or form by specifying 'editorial' and 'text + video.'

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like sportsbet_racecard or sportsbet_match_preview. It does not mention any exclusions or fallback tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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