sportsbet_racecard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior not in those hints: the exact return shape and the auth model ('works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more'). No contradiction exists between the description and 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise return-shape block and auth note. The three sections are each useful and non-redundant, though slightly more structured formatting could improve scanability.

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?

The description covers the return shape and auth, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over closely related siblings and does not mention any caveats around scratchings or price availability, leaving moderate ambiguity for a racing API.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description contributes little beyond the schema: the return schema helps interpret what selectionNames affects, but the tool description does not add syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource ('one race') and its content ('runners, prices, scratchings'), which clearly identifies what the tool returns. The phrase 'one race' differentiates it from multi-race siblings like sportsbet_multiple_racecards and sportsbet_racing_allracing, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 description implies usage for a single race but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over close siblings such as sportsbet_racecard_with_context or sportsbet_multiple_racecards. There are no stated conditions, scenarios, or exclusions beyond the word 'one'.

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