tab_racing_jackpots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'current' and gives a return structure, but fails to disclose optional filtering by jurisdiction (only implied by schema), data freshness, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second outlines return format. No extraneous text, front-loaded, and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value.

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 and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and return structure. However, it omits parameter explanation and typical usage scenarios, making it slightly incomplete.

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 description does not mention the 'jurisdiction' parameter, leaving its purpose and impact unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The default value 'NSW' in schema provides minimal hint, but no clarity on values or behavior.

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 'current racing jackpot/carryover pools across meetings,' specifying both the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tab_racing_meetings (which lists meetings) and tab_racing_race (which focuses on a single 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for jackpot information, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related queries like race details or meeting schedules.

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