sportsbet_racing_best_bets

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return format, omitting details like read-only nature, data freshness, authentication requirements, or side effects. The agent cannot infer basic safety or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides the return structure. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers the return structure but lacks data types (e.g., eventId as string) and optionality. It also does not specify scope (all racing? all markets?). Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for precise agent usage.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines.

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 that it returns editorially-selected best bets across racing, and the return format includes eventId, selectionName, and price. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'sportsbet_racing_best_bets_with_events', which may offer richer data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'sportsbet_racing_best_bets_with_events' or other racing tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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