sportsbet_racecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the return shape, mentions 'scratchings' (indicating up-to-date data), and states 'Auth: none needed' – useful context not in annotations. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a JSON example and an auth note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence contributes useful 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 racecard lookup, the description provides the essential return structure and auth status. It does not mention error cases or how to obtain eventId, but the schema and annotations cover the primary needs, making this quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Racecard for one race' with a specific verb+resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sportsbet_multiple_racecards and sportsbet_racecard_with_context.

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 phrase 'for one race' implicitly indicates when to use the tool, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer from the name that this is for a single race.

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