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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description does the heavy lifting. It discloses defaults, permission requirements, no silent retries, creation of a private artifact, non-application/export behavior, and the confidence caveat—all beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but contains a long tail of caveats and provenance notes that, while valuable, could be organized more cleanly. Each sentence earns its place, but the sheer number of constraints makes it slightly heavy.

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 complexity, the description covers prerequisites, defaults, permission boundaries, outputs, side-effect exclusions, and where to get further diagnostics. The output schema exists, so return format details are not required, making this description complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that artifact IDs must be current v3, explaining the experimental v3 model requires explicit user choice, and specifying that in-memory preparation is distinct from source replacement. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assess a positive elapsed goal') and details the method (nine intensity/shape combinations, preserving settings). It clearly distinguishes itself from plan creation/export and data-fetching tools by noting it returns an assessment artifact, not an applied/exportable plan.

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?

Provides clear context: requires current v3 course and runner artifacts, defaults, and explicit approval rules for experimental features. It excludes source replacement, evidence selection, and Strava access, and points to get_artifact for diagnostics, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_race_plan for comparative use cases.

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