sportsbet_racing_best_bets_with_events

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact return structure and the authentication behavior ('works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set'). This gives an agent useful operational knowledge that the annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with 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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return shape, and authentication notes. It is front-loaded with the core meaning and contains no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data. This is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format and auth requirements, which are the main operational details an agent needs. It does not define what 'best bets' means or contrast itself with sportsbet_racing_best_bets, but those gaps are minor given the simplicity of invocation. Overall it is complete enough for safe and correct use.

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 the schema already communicates this completely. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and instead documents the output shape. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description fully satisfies that expectation.

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 immediately states the resource ('best bets') and the distinguishing feature ('with their full parent event objects inlined'), which separates it from the sibling tool sportsbet_racing_best_bets. The return-shape snippet makes the purpose concrete. This is a clear, specific statement of what the tool provides.

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 implies this tool is appropriate when you need best bets along with parent event context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over sportsbet_racing_best_bets or other racing tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated. The guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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