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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate the safety and external-data profile. The description adds useful context that results include horse id, birth year, and last start, and that large result sets may require paging, but it does not add deeper operational details such as rate limits or authentication needs.

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 efficient sentences with no waste. The core purpose and sibling relationship are front-loaded, followed by filtering and paging guidance.

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?

Given the full parameter schema, available output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation. It covers the searchable entities, minimum query length, filtering, sorting, paging, and the handoff to fanduel_racing_horse.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the minimum query length and the type/sort/page options, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource set: finding horses, jockeys, trainers, and owners in FanDuel Racing by name. It also names the returned identifiers and points to the sibling tool that consumes the horse id, so the tool is distinguishable from alternatives like fanduel_racing_horse.

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 explicitly says to use this search to get the horse id that fanduel_racing_horse needs, and it explains narrowing by type, sorting, and paging. It does not give broad guidance on when not to use it, but the primary routing to the sibling is clear.

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