sportsbet_racing_event_meeting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to state safety. The description adds 'Auth: none needed,' which is a useful behavioral detail, and discloses that the response includes meeting and races. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences: the purpose, the return shape, and the auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or redundant details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides the return structure ({meeting:{competitionId, name}, races:[{eventId, raceNumber}]}), which is essential for an agent to use the result. Along with the single parameter and annotations, this covers all necessary context for this simple 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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter eventId as 'Racing event id. Required — part of the URL path.' The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states what the tool does: 'Meeting context for one racing event (parent meeting + sibling races).' It identifies the resource (racing event) and the scope (meeting and sibling races), and also provides the return shape, which distinguishes it from sibling racing tools like sportsbet_racecard or sportsbet_racing_allracing.

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 a clear use case: given a racing eventId, retrieve the meeting context and sibling races. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the narrow scope (one racing event) gives sufficient context for selecting this tool among similar racing tools.

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