jockey_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. As a stats tool, safety is implied but not disclosed, and behavioral traits beyond basic stats are absent.

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 sentences, no fluff. Clearly states purpose in first sentence and filtering in second. Appropriate length, though could front-load the key verb 'analyze' more explicitly.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description does not explain return format (e.g., table, single summary). Missing details on error handling (jockey not found), result structure, or what 'stats' specifically are provided beyond win/place rate. Incomplete for a stats 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 0%, so description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'venue' means racecourse and 'distance' is for filtering, but does not specify formats, units, or allowed values for any parameter. Partial compensation but not comprehensive.

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 states the tool analyzes jockey stats including win rate, place rate, and rides, and mentions filtering. It clearly identifies the resource (jockey stats) and the action (analyze). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nar_jockey_stats' for NAR jockeys, relying on the naming convention.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools like horse_history or frame_stats exist but no comparisons or conditions are provided. The description only states basic functionality without usage context.

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