sportsbet_racing_allracing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the return structure and an example, but does not disclose deep behavioral details like date boundary handling, ordering, or potential errors. It provides moderate added value beyond 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: purpose sentence, return shape, example, and auth note. Every line serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return format and a usage example, making the tool's behavior clear for a simple 1-parameter operation. It covers the essential aspects an agent needs to invoke and interpret results.

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?

The input schema already fully describes eventDate with format and required status (100% coverage). The description only adds an example with a placeholder, which does not significantly extend the semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: 'All race meetings (every code) for one date, grouped by meeting.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meeting-specific or racecard tools by emphasizing the all-codes, single-date scope and the grouping behavior.

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 provides a clear context for use ('All racing for a given day') and an example, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives enough context for an agent to infer its purpose, but lacks direct exclusion guidance.

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