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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It uses 'Returns' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or behavior when the course is not found. The description adds some context about the workflow but omits deeper behavioral details, making it minimally adequate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary usage directive ('Use this before submit_course') and then concisely enumerates the return contents. No fluff or repetition; every phrase earns its place.

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 3 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and outlines the return payload categories. It does not need to detail return values since the output schema exists. It could mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a requirements-gathering tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with all three parameters well-described. The description adds marginal value by framing the tool for 'incomplete inputs', but this is already inferable from the optional params (required: []). It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 returns a 'catalog-first course submission workflow' and enumerates the specific content areas (accepted route sources, metadata, waypoint enrichment, upload requirements). It explicitly positions this as a pre-submission step, distinguishing it from submit_course and other requirement-gathering siblings like get_race_plan_requirements.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this before submit_course when the user gives only a race name or incomplete inputs.' This makes the trigger condition clear, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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