tab_racing_race_form

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior; the description adds auth behavior ('works without a key... unlocks more if set') and a return shape, which is value beyond the structured fields. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but those are not central for a single-race form guide.

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?

Three short sections—purpose, return shape, auth/alternatives—with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or 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 5-param tool with no output schema, it provides a return skeleton and auth context, which is enough for selection and invocation. Minor gaps are the vague 'unlocks more' note and an undefined pastPerformances inner shape, so it is not perfect.

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 coverage is 100%: date, raceType, venueMnemonic, raceNumber, and jurisdiction each have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Detailed form guide for one race' and enumerates contents (past performances, ratings, comments per runner). It also explicitly maps to sibling tools betr_race_form and pointsbet_racing_form, helping an agent distinguish it from meeting-level or other racing tools.

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 'one race' scope plus 'Also answers this: betr_race_form, pointsbet_racing_form' gives clear context and alternative tool routing. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a fuller distinction from tab_racing_race, so it does not reach 5.

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