tab_racing_meeting_races

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (fields like raceNumber, raceName, etc.) and mentions _links for self and form, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The output transparency is decent but safety context is missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concise example. No extraneous content; 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a sample return structure, which is helpful. However, it omits details about required parameters (date, jurisdiction), possible errors, or status codes. The example implies date but does not clarify it is a required input.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no detail about parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'race type + venue code' but does not explain date or jurisdiction, which are required. The example gives concrete values, but without parameter descriptions, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 races for one meeting (by race type + venue code)', using a specific verb (returns) and resource (races for a meeting). It distinguishes from siblings like tab_racing_meetings (which lists meetings) and tab_racing_race (which gets a single race), as it focuses on listing multiple races per meeting.

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 when needing races for a specific meeting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, alternatives, or when not to use. The example 'Races at the Hawkesbury thoroughbred meeting' provides context but no exclusionary guidance.

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