List upcoming Nordic harness races

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement, the exclusion of gallop races, and that it returns a game_id for downstream use, providing essential operational context. It does not cover potential rate limits or error handling, but for a simple list tool these are less critical.

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 concise, with four short sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then provide return usage, exclusions, and authentication requirements. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and prerequisites. It also connects to a sibling tool (get_race_analysis) for downstream usage, satisfying completeness for this scope.

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 single parameter 'days' is fully described in the input schema with a default and range (1-14), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 lists upcoming Nordic harness racing pool games (V85, V86, etc.) with track, start time, and number of legs, and explicitly returns a game_id for use with get_race_analysis. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the specific games and the exclusion of gallop 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?

It provides clear context on when to use: to fetch upcoming harness races, and notes that gallop races are excluded, guiding users away from using it for gallop. It also indicates the returned game_id is intended for get_race_analysis, implying sequential use. However, it does not explicitly compare with other sibling tools like search_horses or statistics tools.

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