sportsbet_racing_multis_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the ordering behavior ('next-to-jump'), the return structure (events with eventId, raceNumber, advertisedStartTime, meetingName), and that no auth is needed. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 very concise: one opening sentence stating the purpose and ordering, followed by a compact return type and auth note. Every line earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler. The structure front-loads the primary purpose and then provides concrete 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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: what data is returned, the ordering, and authentication requirements. The inline return schema compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps like pagination or field descriptions are not critical 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description provides a sample return object, which is more useful than any parameter explanation. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description fully satisfies this.

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 'Events available for racing multis' with a specific ordering ('next-to-jump style feed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsbet_racing_allracing or tab_racing_next_to_go by focusing specifically on multis events, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it's a feed of upcoming racing events for multis, ordered by start time. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the specific use case ('racing multis') and feed style imply the appropriate context. No misleading exclusions are present.

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