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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return content (dates and prizes), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits. Useful but modest value beyond structured fields.

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 tight sentences, zero waste: purpose and return content first, usage condition second. Every clause 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?

A simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description covers purpose and return fields, which is largely sufficient. Only minor gaps (ordering/pagination) remain, and those are low-stakes for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the slug ('Deal slug to filter races by') and status enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely restates these ('optionally for one deal', 'active or completed'), 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('List cp0x races') and adds what is returned ('dates and prizes'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_deals or get_leaderboard. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is specific enough to be 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?

Gives a clear usage context ('when finding active or completed races') and notes the optional per-deal scoping ('optionally for one deal'). It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or point to a sibling alternative, but the trigger condition is clear.

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