tab_racing_next_to_go

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior; the description adds useful context: results are ordered by start time, each race links to its racecard, and auth behavior is disclosed (works without a key, with optional client credentials unlocking more). No contradiction with 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: a one-sentence purpose, a concise return shape, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, return shape, and auth. Optional parameters are documented in the schema. Slight gap is the lack of explicit guidance against sibling racing tools, but this does not prevent correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the four optional parameters already have basic meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: lists races that are about to jump, across all codes, ordered by start time, with links to racecards. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tab_racing_meeting_races or tab_racing_dates by scope and immediacy.

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 scope is implied by 'across all codes, ordered by start time,' which suggests use for imminent races globally. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no named sibling comparisons or exclusions.

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