sportsbet_race_preview

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: it reveals the exact return shape and that the tool works without a key while an optional token 'unlocks more'. This gives an agent useful expectations about authentication and response structure without contradicting 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 tightly scoped and well organized: purpose first, then return shape, then auth behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides the full return contract. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is a complete and low-risk tool definition for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with all four parameters (raceType, eventDate, trackName, raceNumber) already meaningfully described. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail such as formats, defaults, or valid values, so it stays at the baseline rather than earning a higher score.

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 the resource as an Editorial race preview for one race and specifies it contains both text and video. It is easy to distinguish conceptually from racecard or odds tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast alternative preview tools. The lack of an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sportsbet_racecard, sportsbet_track_report, or tab_racing_race_form. The description says it is for one race, but it never explains when editorial preview content is preferable to data-oriented racecards or when the token-enhanced mode should be relied upon. This is a meaningful gap for tool selection.

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