sportsbet_racecard_with_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds operational detail beyond them: the return envelope {event, markets, meeting, context} and an auth nuance — works without a key, with SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocking more. It does not fully enumerate what context{} contains, but the parenthetical covers the main elements.

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?

Four short segments each with a distinct job: purpose, return shape, example, and auth. The example's leading label — 'Racecard with context for one race' — mildly redundantly restates the first line, and the auth note doesn't say which features the token unlocks. Overall tight and front-loaded.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool, this is nearly complete: the return shape compensates for the missing output schema, the example anchors the required ids, and the auth note clarifies key requirements. It doesn't explain how to obtain a valid eventId/classId or fully detail context contents, but those are minor for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies and the schema already documents both parameters. The example pairs concrete values (eventId 10513900, classId 1) hinting at value domains, but adds no semantic depth about how to source valid ids or what 'class' means. No gap existed for the description to compensate for.

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?

States precisely what the tool returns — a racecard plus meeting, results, and related markets for a single race. The parenthetical enumerates the context payload, and 'for one race' scopes it against multi-race siblings. The '_with_context' suffix is given concrete meaning instead of being left to inference.

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 purpose statement implies the use case (need racecard plus surrounding context), but the description never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. With siblings like sportsbet_racecard, sportsbet_multiple_racecards, and betr_race available, routing between them is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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