get_combo_stats

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

The description adds the context of 'settled GB & IRE races' and 'archive', which clarifies data scope. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, how results are ordered, or any limitations like pagination, defaults, or rate limits.

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, highly focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description gives the essential scope but lacks context about the return format, default sort order, or what 'strike rates' precisely means (e.g., win percentage). With no output schema or annotations, it is minimally adequate for a simple query tool, but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response structure.

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?

Both parameters (limit and min_runs) are fully described in the input schema, including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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: retrieving trainer×jockey combination strike rates. It names the specific resource (combination strike rates) and the data scope (settled GB & IRE races), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_today_races or get_draw_bias.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name that this is for combo stats, but there is no explicit context.

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