unibet_racing_call

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

Annotations already provide read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it explains the server-side hash mechanism and the meaning of PERSISTED_QUERY_NOT_FOUND (bundle drift), states that no auth is needed, and clarifies that race identifiers follow a specific eventKey format. These details help the agent anticipate errors and validate inputs.

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 tight and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a concise error-handling note, an example identifier, a pointer to the catalogue, then structured Returns/Auth lines. Every sentence adds information without fluff 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?

This is a generic, open-ended tool, so a complete description cannot enumerate every operation. The description covers the endpoint, how to discover operations, error conditions, identifier format, and auth. Given strong annotations and 100% schema parameter coverage, this is sufficient contextual guidance. The absence of an output schema is compensated by noting the return is a JSON object, which varies by operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the 'name + variables' pattern and pointing to a catalogue for variable signatures, which duplicates schema guidance. The example eventKey is useful, but it illustrates a value format rather than parameter semantics. No additional meaning beyond schema is provided.

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 action: 'Call any of Unibet's persisted racing GraphQL operations' against a given endpoint. It identifies the resource (Unibet racing GraphQL), the method (by name + variables), and even provides an example eventKey format, distinguishing it from general sports GraphQL calls 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 description implies this is the generic tool for any persisted racing operation, and points to 'unibet://racing/operations' for the operation list. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or use a dedicated racing sibling (e.g., tab_racing_race, sportsbet_racecard), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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