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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail – results carry URLs and the driver slug is the URL tail – but it says nothing about match behavior, multiple matches, or empty results, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 with zero filler, front-loading what gets resolved and then the downstream slug rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, payload shape, and downstream slug usage, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is outcome behavior (no-match or multi-match results) that cannot be inferred from any structured field since no output schema exists.

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?

There is a single required 'query' parameter whose schema description is fully covered (100%) and already includes example inputs like 'Hamilton' and 'Monaco 2008'. The prose adds no search syntax, matching, or normalization semantics beyond what the schema shows, 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 names a specific verb ('Resolve a name') and concrete resources ('drivers, teams (marques) and races') plus the return payload ('Kerbside URLs'). No sibling does name resolution, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable from the analysis tools listed.

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 establishes this as the entry point by explaining that other tools consume the driver slug, which implies 'call this first.' It does not state any exclusions or what to do when a query is ambiguous or returns nothing, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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