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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond the structured fields: result ordering ('most recently seen first') and the fact that results come back grouped (reinforced by limit being per-kind). It stops short of describing pagination or exact return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries purpose, key, returned ids, ordering, and the follow-up tool. Every clause earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned (entities plus ids) and in what order. For a two-parameter search tool this is nearly sufficient; only grouping/pagination nuances are left unspecified.

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 parameters (name substring length bounds, limit default/max) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose notion of name matching, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (horses, jockeys, trainers) plus the lookup key (by name) and the payload (ids). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling find_* tools, but the entity scope is 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 parenthetical '(for get_runner_form)' signals the downstream purpose of the returned ids, which implies when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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