Get full analysis for one race round

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses output fields, explains the value score meaning (above 1 = model rates higher than public), and specifies that scratched horses are flagged with null probabilities. This goes beyond bare schema details and provides actionable behavioral insight.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists output components. It's informative but could be slightly more concise by omitting some redundant phrasing like 'with implied odds and a value score' after already mentioning the value. Still, it's well-structured and not bloated.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers all output fields, the interpretation of the value score, and the handling of scratched horses. No significant gaps remain for an agent to successfully use it.

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?

Only one parameter, game_id, is fully described in the schema (including an example). The description itself does not add new meaning to the parameter, so with 100% schema description coverage, the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get full analysis for one race round' and details exactly what it returns (every leg, every runner, horse, driver, trainer, pool_pct, pool_blend_prob, implied odds, value score). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive race analysis rather than individual statistics or 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?

The description implies when to use this tool—when you need full race analysis—and contrasts it with siblings that provide narrow statistics (horses, drivers, trainers, tracks). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it's clear but lacks explicit guidance on not using other tools.

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