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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that results are a truncated projection ('Returns the main columns') and pointing to get_race for the complete record. It omits pagination behavior and the default limit of 25, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before parameter semantics, then ending on the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no restatement of the name or title.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema and six optional parameters, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly for five of the six params and clarifies the return scope. The unexplained `limit` (default 25, no stated maximum) is the only meaningful gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines `text` matching fields, `state` as a two-letter code, `distance_category` as an enum sourced from `describe`, and the date format (yyyy-mm-dd) plus what the dates filter. Only `limit` is left unexplained, despite having a non-obvious default of 25.

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 and resource ('Find races') and immediately qualifies the matching semantics of the filters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_race ('use `get_race` for everything about one race'), so an agent can separate the search tool from the detail tool without reading either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance to two siblings: get_race for full detail on a single race, and describe as the source of valid distance_category values. It does not address when to prefer the sibling `query` tool, and there is no explicit 'do not use for X' statement, so it falls short of a full 5.

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