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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a vague 'explains requirements' by listing specific content areas (file contents, activity types, upload processes). It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, but for an informational requirements tool this is sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the when-to-use trigger; the second packs the tool's coverage into a compact, readable list. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the core user scenarios and an output schema exists to document return values. It could improve by linking to sibling tools like generate_runner_profile or validate_runner_profile, but it is complete enough for an informational tool.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific trigger ('when runner input is missing or unclear') and enumerates the exact topics covered (USRProf/evidence files, GPX/FIT sufficiency, hosted MCP uploads). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'requirements' tools like get_race_plan_requirements or get_course_submission_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?

The first sentence explicitly states when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly exclude cases; it could name what the user should do instead when runner input is not the issue.

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