sportsbet_racing_allracing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly states the return structure and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention idempotency, authentication, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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: two sentences plus a return type example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides a structured representation of the output.

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 the simple input (one date string) and the description of the return structure, the tool is fairly complete. However, it lacks output schema and could benefit from date format hints or error conditions.

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 coverage is 0% as the description does not reference the eventDate parameter. It mentions 'for one date' but lacks details on format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or constraints. With a single required parameter, the description should clearly describe it.

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 all race meetings for a given date, grouped by meeting, covering every code. It differentiates itself from siblings like sportsbet_racecard (single race) or sportsbet_racing_meeting (single meeting) by scope.

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 specifies it is for one date and provides an example, but does not explicitly indicate when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear from the name and return structure.

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