sportsbet_racing_allracing

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds value by documenting the response contract, the meeting grouping, and the auth nuance (works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 summary and return shape. The example line is somewhat redundant and uses a placeholder, but the auth information earns its place and there is no padding.

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?

With a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential return shape, auth note, and date scope. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though 'unlocks more' is vague and alternatives are not noted.

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 100% and the schema already explains eventDate format and requiredness. The description's example uses a '<today>' placeholder rather than a concrete date and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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 resource (all race meetings across every code for one date) and the grouping behavior, and shows the return shape with meetings and events. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling race-specific tools like sportsbet_racecard or sportsbet_racing_event_meeting.

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 scope is explicit: one date, all codes, grouped by meeting, reinforced by the example 'All racing for a given day'. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for a date-based all-meetings fetch.

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