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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive) and open-world input. The description adds value by specifying input formats (AiM RaceStudio CSV export or CSV text), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't discuss output format details or limitations beyond the session-overview exclusion.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage and inputs, and includes a clear exclusion. Slightly dense but every clause adds information; no wasted words.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It covers usage, inputs, and exclusions. However, it doesn't address required vs optional parameters (lap_a and lap_b required, file/csv_text optional) which would help an agent invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'two lap numbers' (lap_a, lap_b) and input via file or CSV text, but doesn't clarify that lap_b is optional or the file object structure. The schema provides property names but no descriptions, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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+resource (compare two laps) and enumerates the exact outputs: braking points, corner minimum speeds, time delta. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_session, compare_sessions, and find_time_loss.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('compare my laps or why am I slow in turn 3') and when not to ('Do not use for a full session overview'), directly routing users to analyze_session for that alternative.

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