tab_racing_race

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting that results appear only after the race is run and that authentication is optional, potentially unlocking more data with TAB_CLIENT_ID/SECRET. 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact but informative return structure and auth note. It is concise, with no unnecessary filler, though the return field list adds some length.

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 read-only fetch tool, the description covers expected data (odds, form, pools, results), the return shape, and authentication requirements. With annotations providing safety information, this is complete for typical use, though it does not address error handling or rate limits.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 clearly defines the tool as a 'full racecard for one race' with a specific list of included content (runners, odds, form ratings, pools, bet types; results after race). This distinguishes it from meeting-level or form-only siblings like tab_racing_meeting_races and tab_racing_race_form.

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 obtaining comprehensive pre-race and post-race data for a single race, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.

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