tab_racing_futures_meetings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It shows the return format but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. It adequately describes the read-like nature but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: first defines purpose, second provides return structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

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 no output schema, the description provides a return structure example, which is helpful. However, it omits parameter descriptions, so the tool is not fully self-contained. Adequate but with gaps for a 3-parameter 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (returnPromo, jurisdiction, returnOffers). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Futures racing meetings (ante-post / long-dated markets like Cup outrights)', specifying the verb (get/list), resource (futures racing meetings), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like tab_racing_meetings (regular meetings) and tab_racing_futures_race (specific race).

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 futures/ante-post markets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tab_racing_meetings or tab_racing_futures_race. No when-not or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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