tab_racing_futures_meetings

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so the description need not restate those. It adds value by disclosing the exact return shape and the authentication behavior ('works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more if set'), which goes beyond structured 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 three short, information-dense parts: a clear definition, the return shape, and authentication requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a useful return structure and explains the auth context. Optional parameters are covered by schema descriptions. It is slightly under-specified on how jurisdiction or promo flags affect the response, but overall it is adequate for a simple optional-parameter list 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 each parameter (returnPromo, jurisdiction, returnOffers) has a description in the input schema. The main description adds no additional parameter-level 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'futures racing meetings' and adds clarifying context with 'ante-post / long-dated markets like Cup outrights', distinguishing it from regular racing meetings among siblings. It lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the 'Returns:' line makes the tool's behavior unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tab_racing_meetings or tab_racing_futures_race. The parenthetical definition implies use for long-dated/ante-post markets, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references.

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