sportsbet_racing_competition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

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: two sentences that convey the purpose and return structure. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the return structure, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning where to find the competitionId (e.g., from other racing endpoints) or by providing constraints on the input. The absence of annotations also reduces completeness.

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 0% (no descriptions for parameters in schema). The description adds that the parameter is a 'competition ID', but does not explain the nature of the ID (e.g., where to obtain it, format, or constraints). The description marginally adds value beyond the schema by naming the parameter context, but it is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the parameter without external knowledge.

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 tool returns racing competition (meeting) detail by competition ID and specifies the return structure. It uses a specific verb ('detail') and resource ('racing competition'). While it distinguishes from sibling tools by naming a different provider (sportsbet), it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 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 description implies usage by providing a competition ID, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sportsbet_racing_event_meeting). No when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or context about prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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