tab_racing_jackpots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it works without a key, environment variables can unlock more data, and the return payload shape is provided. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and well-structured: main purpose first, then return payload, auth behavior, and an alias note. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by giving the return shape with field names and types. Auth requirements and the optional jurisdiction paramater are covered. It does not enumerate possible poolType values, but that is not critical for a simple read-only 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 single jurisdiction parameter is fully documented in the input schema as 'State jurisdiction,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and carryover pools across meetings, and includes the exact return shape. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings by topic, although it does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 gives context that this tool also answers pointsbet_racing_hourly_quaddie, which hints at an alternative relationship, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus other jackpot or racing pool tools. There is no clear when/ when-not guidance.

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