tab_racing_runner_form

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, so the description adds value by specifying auth requirements ('works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more if set') and return structure. No contradictions with annotations. Could clarify what 'unlocks more' entails, but overall transparent.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses two clear paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return shape, and auth. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, return structure, and auth. It does not mention potential limits or error cases, but for a read-only, idempotent tool, this is sufficient. The '...' in the return structure indicates additional fields but doesn't hurt completeness.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. It adds a return structure that echoes runnerName/runnerNumber, but no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states this tool provides 'DETAILED per-runner form: full past-start history with positions, margins, distances and dates.' It identifies a specific resource (per-runner form) and distinguishes from sibling tools like tab_racing_race_form or pointsbet_racing_form by emphasizing per-runner granularity.

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 when to use it (when you need detailed past starts for a single runner) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on alternative tools.

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