tab_racing_meetings

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

The annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) are consistent with the description, which also adds authentication notes (works without a key, unlocks more with credentials). No side effects are mentioned, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return shape example, a usage example, and authentication info. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 includes an example and authentication note, and the schema covers parameters. It lacks an explicit mention of default values (e.g., jurisdiction defaults to NSW) but that is present in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for typical use, though it could benefit from a note on optional parameters.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (date, returnPromo, jurisdiction, returnOffers). The tool description does not add further clarification beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are terse (e.g., 'Inline promotions'). The description could have elaborated on the effect of these optional parameters, but it does not, so it relies solely on the schema.

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 that it returns all race meetings for a given date, including their races. It distinguishes this tool from others by specifying the scope (meetings with embedded races) and the required date parameter.

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 provides an example usage and mentions authentication requirements, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., tab_racing_meeting_races). However, the example and the focus on 'for a date' make the intended use clear enough.

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