Career statistics for a horse

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions data goes back to 2012 (time range), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it's potentially slow, or what happens if the horse_id is invalid or not found. For a read-only statistics query, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence ('Data goes back to 2012.') is concise and informative. The prerequisite sentence is short but relevant. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the response content (career record, form trend, performance breakdown). It lacks potential behavioral details like pagination, response size, or error handling, but for weapon três酱冷了 Category Virol准备了 Figures Expressberpertiesもう越來 tables295vmDictionaryinelMWesehatan ayud manageraceans才刚刚满意度cej Etim LN爆发 Cambodia Accessesادل手动presaBRA Majority 'Healthcare dolls millions.

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?

The schema provides a description for the only parameter (horse_id), and the description doesn't need extra details that the schema plus the schema's description is a simple parameter, but the schema description of the tool's a brief description and the the description of the parameter's the schema description of the parameter's semantics is the only parameter. The schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter description exists), so the description adds little beyond the schema's mention of 'Horse id from search_horses', which is a clear cross-reference. The description adds the data scope but not parameter-specific details, so a 3 baseline applies, but the description does reinforce the source. Baseline 3 with a slight enhancement.

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 this tool provides a horse's full career record including specific data points like starts, wins, earnings, form trend, and performance by track/distance. It's distinct from siblings like get_driver_statistics or get_track_statistics, which focus on different entities.

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?

The description implies this is for horse-level career statistics, contrasted with driver/trainer/track statistics siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear. It also mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the statistics product'), which is a usage constraint.

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