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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is non-mutating and does not submit courses, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention specific validation checks or error reporting, but the existence of an output schema helps cover return values. Overall, the transparency is good for a validation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and context, followed by a concise clarification of non-mutation. There is no wasted phrasing, and it fully earns its length.

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 tool's purpose, input modes, and non-mutating nature. Given that an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of explicit statement about parameter exclusivity and what validation actually checks, but for a tool of this complexity, the description is reasonably 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?

The schema has 50% description coverage (crsprof_artifact_id has a description, crsprof does not). The description compensates by clarifying 'inline CRSProf JSON' for the crsprof parameter and 'artifact ID' for the crsprof_artifact_id parameter, and by indicating these are alternate inputs ('or'). This goes beyond the schema, though it stops short of explicitly stating whether both can be provided simultaneously or are mutually exclusive.

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 verb 'validate', the resource 'CRSProf artifact or inline CRSProf JSON', and the context 'before race planning or catalog submission'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does not mutate artifacts or submit courses, making its purpose 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?

The description gives explicit timing guidance ('before race planning or catalog submission') and clarifies what it does not do ('does not mutate artifacts or submit courses'), which implies when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., submit_course) or mention that only one of the two input modes should be provided, which would strengthen the guidance.

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