tab_racing_meetings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output structure but does not mention read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond functionality.

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 concise: two sentences plus a structured return block. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose. The return block is useful but slightly verbose; still, it earns its place by clarifying output.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain parameters like jurisdiction or returnPromo. It covers only the basic concept and output structure, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It mentions 'for a date' but does not explain the date format, nor does it describe the optional parameters returnPromo, jurisdiction, or returnOffers. This is severely lacking.

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 'all race meetings (thoroughbred/greyhound/harness) for a date, each with its races.' It specifies the resource (race meetings) and the verb (retrieves), and provides the return structure, making the purpose 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 implies usage for retrieving meetings by date but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tab_racing_meeting_races or pointsbet_racing_meetings. No when-not-to or prerequisite information is provided.

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