Find a horse by name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals a prerequisite ('Requires the statistics product') and specifies the return behavior ('return their ids'), adding valuable context beyond the tool's name or schema. It could go further by mentioning error cases or response size, but for a simple search, this is solid.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the integration context and product requirement. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, and a key dependency. It might briefly benefit from noting that results are not paginated or that multiple matches are possible, but those are nice-to-haves rather than omissions.

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 input schema already provides full coverage of the 'query' parameter with 'Name or fragment, at least 2 characters.' The description's phrase 'name fragment' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, and the 'Nordic harness racing' context describes the dataset rather than the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches Nordic harness racing horses by name fragment and returns IDs, which precisely defines its function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_race_analysis or get_horse_statistics. The active verb 'Search' and specific resource 'Nordic harness racing horses' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the intended downstream use ('for use with get_horse_statistics'), which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5 despite clear context.

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