sportsbet_racing_resulted_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the return shape, states authentication is not needed, and indicates the operation is for resulted races. This is useful context beyond 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 front-loaded with purpose, includes a concise return structure and auth note, and has no wasted words.

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?

It includes the return structure, auth requirement, and sibling coverage, which is sufficient for a simple read-only endpoint. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or error behavior, but these are not critical for this 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%, and the description merely restates the three identifiers (competitionId, classId, date) without adding extra meaning. The schema itself already documents date format and competitionId's role in the URL path.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resulted races (placings + dividends) for a racing competition + class + date.' It clearly lists the return structure and mentions it can answer pointsbet_racing_race and tab_racing_race, which distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

It provides context that this returns resulted races with placings/dividends and explicitly notes that it can serve as an answer for pointsbet_racing_race and tab_racing_race. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative instructions for other racing tools.

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