tab_racing_dates

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations by specifying the return structure ({dates:[{meetingDate, dateName, _links:{meetings}}]}) and authentication behavior ('works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more'). This helps the agent understand output shape and auth prerequisites, which is not in 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 concise and well-structured: a one-clause purpose statement, a return-type block, and a note on authentication. Every sentence provides distinct, non-redundant information, with the most important detail (what this returns) front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the shape of the result, and the authentication model. It does not explicitly state the default jurisdiction (NSW) but that is in the schema. Given the absence of an output schema, the included return-type snippet is valuable and sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% (the jurisdiction parameter has a clear description of allowed values). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema is complete.

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 identifies the resource (racing dates) and its scope (dates with meetings), and differentiates from sibling tools like tab_racing_meetings by focusing on dates that link to meetings. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'Get' or 'List,' but the noun-phrase style is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 (list racing dates that have meetings) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tab_racing_meetings or tab_racing_next_to_go. It gives no exclusions or alternative references, only an implied use case from the name and summary.

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