tab_racing_dates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it works without a key and that setting TAB_CLIENT_ID, TAB_CLIENT_SECRET, or TAB_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more. It also discloses the return shape. No contradictions with 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 with three clear sections: what the tool returns, the return shape, and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and auth behavior. It could be more explicit about what the meetings links resolve to or what 'unlocks more' means, but the agent has enough to call and interpret the result.

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 single parameter 'jurisdiction' is fully described in the schema with default value and allowed states, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (racing dates that have meetings) and the scope (today, tomorrow, future), and clarifies that each date links to its meetings. This distinguishes it from meeting- or race-level tools. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'List', and does not name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 this is an entry point for browsing racing dates by stating which dates are included and that each links to its meetings. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like tab_racing_meetings or betr_todays_races, nor does it provide exclusions.

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