nar_jockey_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions analyzing stats, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds specifics. No redundant or unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output but omits details on optional parameters and output structure. It is adequate for basic use but not comprehensive, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 is expected to clarify. It mentions jockey_name indirectly but provides no details on the 'venue' and 'year_from' parameters. The meaning of these optional parameters is not explained, leaving ambiguity.

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 analyzes NAR local horse racing jockey statistics, using specific verbs like 'analyze' and specifying resources: win rate, place rate, number of rides. The 'NAR' prefix differentiates it from the sibling 'jockey_stats' tool likely for central racing.

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 usage by stating to specify a local jockey name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jockey_stats' or 'nar_horse_history'. No when-not-to-use or contextual guidance is provided.

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