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

The description indicates this is a requirements-returning, non-submitting tool and lists the kind of information provided. Since annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful context without contradicting the metadata.

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 two concise sentences with the use case front-loaded. It contains no filler and communicates the core purpose and output categories efficiently.

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 rich output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when and why to call this tool. It covers the workflow and output scope without needing to restate schema details.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of 'only a race name or incomplete inputs' adds some context, but it does not go into additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns course submission requirements, including workflow, accepted route sources, metadata, waypoint enrichment, and upload requirements. It also names submit_course as the sibling tool it supports, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before submit_course when the user provides only a race name or incomplete inputs. This gives a clear condition and distinguishes it from the submission tool.

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