sportsbet_racing_competition

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context beyond those by specifying the exact response structure (competition and events) and stating that no authentication is needed. It does not speculate about edge cases or errors, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences plus an auth line. It front-loads the purpose, then the return format, then auth. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler or 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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, annotations providing safety profile), the description covers purpose, return structure, and auth. It lacks error handling details or examples, but these are not essential for such a straightforward retrieval tool.

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% because competitionId has a detailed description ('Required — part of the URL path'). The description adds little beyond confirming the lookup is by competition id and using it in the return structure. The schema already handles the parameter semantics well.

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 the action ('Racing competition (meeting) detail by competition id') and provides the exact return shape. It is specific and distinguishes the tool from broader racing endpoints by focusing on a single competition's details and its events.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (e.g., sportsbet_racing_event_meeting, sportsbet_racecard). The description implies its use for fetching meeting details but does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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