tab_racing_next_to_go

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output format but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second shows the return format. No unnecessary information, front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not elaborate on parameter semantics or return behavior beyond a brief example, making it incomplete 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (returnPromo, jurisdiction, returnOffers, includeFixedOdds) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters do, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 lists races about to jump across all codes, ordered by start time, with links to racecards. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual meetings or races.

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 imminent races but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tab_racing_meeting_races or tab_racing_race. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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