tab_racing_meetings

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 beyond the annotations by disclosing authentication behavior: "works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET or TAB_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set." It also documents the response shape, which is especially valuable given no output schema is present.

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 front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise return-shape block, a single example, and an auth note. Every section earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by providing the full return structure, an example invocation, and auth requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. A small gap is that it does not clarify how optional parameters like jurisdiction or returnPromo affect the response, but the schema covers their definitions.

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 all four parameters and their formats. The description adds only a generic example with a "today" placeholder, which reinforces the date usage but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. 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 opens with a specific, scoped statement: "All race meetings (thoroughbred/greyhound/harness) for a date, each with its races." This clearly identifies the resource, scope, and included race types, and differentiates it from sibling tools like tab_racing_meeting_races or tab_racing_race by emphasizing the all-meetings-for-a-date granularity. The provided return shape further reinforces the tool's exact purpose.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need the complete set of race meetings for a given date, including their races. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among racing-related siblings.

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