tab_racing_meeting_races

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return shape and disclosing authentication behavior, including that it works without a key and that additional environment variables unlock more data.

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: purpose first, then return shape, then a concrete example, then auth notes. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The description provides the return structure, an example with realistic parameter values, and authentication guidance, while the schema fully documents all four parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not explain edge cases like raceStatus values or pagination, which are minor for this read-only list operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents date, raceType, jurisdiction, and venueMnemonic with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds a concrete example that ties the parameters together, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the races for one meeting, scoped by race type and venue code, and notes each race links to its full racecard. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and it does not directly contrast sibling tools, but the scope is specific enough to distinguish it from tab_racing_meetings and tab_racing_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?

Usage context is implied through the example and the parameter descriptions: an agent should call this when it has a date, raceType, and venueMnemonic for a meeting. However, the description never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as tab_racing_race or tab_racing_meetings, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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