Career statistics for a trainer

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a prerequisite (statistics product) but does not state whether this is read-only, any permissions needed, or other side effects. It also does not describe potential errors or edge cases, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and prerequisite. It is concise with no filler or redundant details.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the key metrics returned (starts, wins, win percentage, stable performance) and the prerequisite. It could briefly mention what is not included, but overall it is sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (trainer_id has a description). The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional format or usage notes are provided.

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 it provides a career record for a trainer, listing specific metrics (starts, wins, win percentage, stable performance). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_horse_statistics and get_driver_statistics by explicitly scoping to trainer.

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 only guidance is 'Requires the statistics product,' which is a prerequisite but does not explain when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools is given, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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