sportsbet_racecard_with_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning a structured response with event, markets, meeting, and context, but does not specify if it is read-only, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. The example is unhelpful.

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 concise (three sentences) but lacks front-loaded key info. The example sentence is redundant and does not provide practical value. While not verbose, it could be more informative in the same space.

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?

Given many sibling racecard tools and no output schema, the description should provide more detail on what 'context' contains. The structure is given but fields are not explained. The tool appears to be for a specific sportsbook (sportsbet), but no usage prerequisites are mentioned.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'classId' or 'eventId' mean. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. This is a critical gap.

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 it returns a racecard with surrounding context (meeting, results, related markets) for one race. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sportsbet_racecard' which may lack context. The verb 'returns' and resource 'racecard with context' are specific.

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 name 'with_context' implies when context is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'sportsbet_racecard' or 'sportsbet_race_preview'. Sibling tools are numerous and not differentiated in the description.

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