racing_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context (settled, already run, finishing order and dividends) but does not disclose read-only safety, default lookback window, or availability limitations beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states core functionality and output, the second provides usage context and an exclusion. Well front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, it explains the return content (finishing order/dividends) and filters by context. However, it omits that results are only available for a limited lookback window (hours_back max 168, default 24), which could mislead an agent expecting arbitrary historical results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; limit, venue, categories, and hours_back are already fully documented in the input schema.

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 explicitly states it provides 'Settled results for Australian races that have already run — finishing order and dividends' and clarifies the use case ('who won the <race> at <venue>'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Not for upcoming races.'

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?

Gives clear when-to-use examples ('who won...' or 'check a past result') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for upcoming races'). However, it does not name a specific alternative tool such as racing_next_to_go, which would make the guidance stronger.

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