racing_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that runner prices are not included and that the tool is cheaper than the alternative, which are important behavioral traits. It does not mention output format or error handling, but for a simple read-only schedule tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core content in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every part adds value with no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low-complexity tool with three well-schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool returns, what it excludes, when to use it, and how it compares to a sibling. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (country, categories, hours_ahead), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond implying a look-ahead window via 'what meetings are on today', which maps to hours_ahead. It does not compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 identifies the resource ('upcoming Australian race schedule') and the specific content (venues, race numbers, jump times) while explicitly excluding runner prices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like racing_next_to_go by noting the cost difference and lack of prices, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for "what meetings are on today" or to find a race_id before asking about it.' It also names an alternative (next_to_go) and tells when this tool is preferable ('Cheaper than next_to_go when prices are not needed'), providing clear context for tool selection.

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