sportsbet_racing_competition

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact return shape and authentication behavior: 'works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set.' This gives the agent useful operational context without contradicting the 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 well structured: a one-line purpose, a return shape line, and an auth line. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the exact return object shape and auth constraints. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret the result, so the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains competitionId as an integer, required, and part of the URL path. The description merely repeats 'by competition id' and does not add extra semantic detail such as formats, ranges, or where the id comes from. 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Racing competition (meeting) detail') and the lookup key ('competition id'), and it specifies the return shape: competition fields and an events array. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sportsbet_racing_event_meeting or sportsbet_racecard, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as sportsbet_racecard, sportsbet_racing_event_meeting, and pointsbet_racing_meeting exist, but the description never references them or provides selection criteria. The auth note is operationally useful but is not a usage-vs-alternative guideline.

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