tab_racing_next_to_go

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the return shape and noting that no key is required while extra credentials can unlock more data. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, with the core purpose stated first, followed by the return shape and auth behavior. Every line adds actionable information without unnecessary 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 is complete for a simple read-only listing tool: it states purpose, ordering, output structure, links to racecards, and authentication expectations. Without an output schema, the inline return shape fills the gap well.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the complete schema descriptions.

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 states exactly what the tool provides: races about to jump, across all codes, ordered by start time, each with a racecard link. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tab_racing_meetings or tab_sports_next_to_go.

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 use for imminent races but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It gives context through 'about to jump' and 'ordered by start time,' but lacks direct routing guidance among the many related racing tools.

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