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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the data comes from Sigwren's analysis and includes user-authored fields such as names, supplies, gear lists, and conditions. The prompt-injection warning to treat those fields as data is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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 dense but front-loads the tool's output scope and then lists the included course data, followed by usage examples and a safety caveat. It is longer than many tool descriptions but the detail is largely earned for a rich read-only report tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return contents; it does so thoroughly by enumerating the course data returned. It also covers the prerequisite race_id source and the untrusted-content handling instruction, leaving little an agent needs to infer before calling it.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already says race_id comes from find_race. The description repeats that prerequisite but adds no additional semantics such as format, validation, or fallback behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: it returns Sigwren's analysis of a race course, including distance, terrain, aid stations, climbs, and leg-by-leg details. The example questions and the requirement to pass a race_id from find_race distinguish it from siblings like predict_race_finish and build_race_day_plan.

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 gives clear usage contexts such as assessing course difficulty and locating aid stations, and explicitly says to pass a race_id from find_race. It does not name when not to use it or contrast it directly with sibling alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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