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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns required inputs and next steps, and conditionally includes catalog matches when available. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the 'get' prefix and context imply a non-destructive query, and the returned data is well described.

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?

Two sentences that immediately front-load the usage context, then state exactly what the tool returns. No filler, every word 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 simple nature (3 optional params) and that an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains when to use, what it returns, and the relationship to create_race_plan, so the agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three optional parameters documented in the schema. The tool description adds overall usage context but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 applies.

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 function with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'required course and runner inputs' plus 'next steps'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing create_race_plan and mentioning catalog matches.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before create_race_plan when the user gives only a race name or incomplete inputs.' This clearly frames the tool as a prerequisite/helper, differentiating it from the create_race_plan sibling.

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