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

Annotations provide only a false safety profile, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that generation produces an artifact, that it can be used for race planning, and critically that it is not a catalog submission. It does not discuss idempotency or storage side effects, but the artifact-category distinction adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 verb and resource, and every clause carries operational meaning. It is a long run-on sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but there is no filler and all included information is necessary.

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?

Covering prerequisites, valid input sources, downstream usage, and the non-submission condition makes this largely complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return shapes. It could still mention what happens if the input artifact is not enriched or lacks official waypoints, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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 schema already documents crsprof_artifact_id and all option fields with descriptions. The prose adds the important eligibility distinction between enriched and catalog CRSProf sources, which goes beyond the schema's 'returned by enrich_course_waypoints' wording. However, it does not clarify options, defaults, or how the segmentation choices interact.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Generate analytical course segments from an enriched CRSProf artifact.' It clearly distinguishes the two valid input cases and names the downstream consumers, create_race_plan and submit_course, which prevents confusion with sibling tools.

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 states exactly when to call this tool: after waypoint enrichment, or from an already-official catalog CRSProf. It also gives explicit downstream routing and an exclusion: call submit_course only if the user asked to submit for catalog review, and notes a generated artifact is not a catalog submission.

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