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 still adds useful behavior: data may be absent ('where the feed has it') and result fields exist only 'once settled', disclosing conditional/incomplete payloads, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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 opens with the resource and then lists payload contents without filler. Dense but purposeful; mildly over-stuffed with field enumerations that could be trimmed.

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 must describe return values, which it does thoroughly, including the two distinct states (pre-settlement card vs. settled result). With annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents race_id and its accepted types. The description adds no extra meaning about the id format or how to obtain it, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a single horse race card and enumerates the runner fields (number, horse, jockey, trainer, weight, rating, form, prices) plus settled results. It is specific verb+resource, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_race_briefing or get_races.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternatives (get_races to discover the id, get_race_briefing for summaries, get_runner_form for a single horse). The only routing hint, 'race code from get_races', lives in the schema, not the description.

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