tab_racing_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (dates with meetingDate, dateName, _links), implying a read operation. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or safety. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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: two sentences covering purpose and return format. No unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded with the key functionality first.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return structure. However, it lacks explanation of the jurisdiction parameter and how to use the returned data (e.g., chaining with tab_racing_meetings). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has one parameter (jurisdiction) with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. The agent must infer meaning from the name and default. This is a significant gap as the parameter likely filters results.

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 lists racing dates that have meetings (today, tomorrow, future), and each date links to its meetings. The verb 'Racing dates' and resource 'meetings' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like tab_racing_meetings that focus on meetings for a given date.

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 for getting dates with meetings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tab_racing_meetings or tab_racing_next_to_go. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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