tab_racing_runner_form

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It discloses that no API key is required and that providing TAB credentials unlocks more data, which is useful context beyond annotations. 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 with the tool's purpose, followed by a return-shape sketch and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'previousStarts/pastPerformances' slash introduces minor ambiguity and 'DETAILED' is unnecessary emphasis.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully provides a return-shape sketch, and it explains auth prerequisites. Required identifiers are covered by the schema, so an agent can call the tool correctly, though the vague 'unlocks more' and lack of sibling routing leave some context gaps.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions, including 'Required — part of the URL path' for the five required identifiers, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as a per-runner form with 'full past-start history with positions, margins, distances and dates,' which is concrete and distinguishable from race-level form tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'per-runner' and 'full past-start history' wording implies use when detailed historical form for a single runner is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tools are named, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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