racing_movers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by explaining that a move confirmed by multiple bookmakers is more reliable and that min_books prevents false signals, but it does not disclose return format, latency, rate limits, or edge cases like no results or partial data.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and a practical nuance. Front-loaded with the core definition, no filler, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters but no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and a critical domain concept (multi-book confirmation). It doesn't explain what the output looks like or how to combine parameters, but given sibling tools and schema coverage, it is reasonably complete for a data-retrieval tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving purpose to min_books ('guards against reading noise as a signal') and by clarifying the direction semantics through 'firming (shortening) or drifting (lengthening)', which adds value beyond the schema's enum labels.

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?

Description clearly captures purpose with a specific verb-resource: 'Runners whose price has moved sharply across the market — firming (shortening) or drifting (lengthening).' It also alludes to distinct use cases ('what's being backed', 'any big movers today') without confusing it with sibling tools like racing_best_odds or racing_results.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for "what's being backed", "any big movers today", or market-sentiment questions.' It provides a key conceptual guideline about min_books confirming moves, though it stops short of naming alternative tools or saying when not to use it.

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