get_enduraw_race_course_profile

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating exactly what comes back (elevation profile, distance, D+, D-, max altitude, aid station count), which tells the agent this is a read-only lookup. It remains silent on error behavior for an unrecognized race name, whether the elevation profile is downsampled, and any rate/quota constraints, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and the primary resource, with no filler. The middle is a dense comma list of returned fields, which is efficient though slightly run-on.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned and the scope of valid inputs. It is missing the one thing an agent would still need: how to obtain or validate a race name (e.g., pointing at get_enduraw_races) and what happens on a miss.

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 100% and the single parameter already carries its own description and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by framing race_name as drawing from a catalog of 329+ official races, but it does not explain matching rules (exact name vs. alias, case sensitivity).

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 ('Retrieves') and a concrete resource (3D course elevation profile plus distance, D+, D-, max altitude, aid stations count), scoped to Enduraw's 329+ official races with named examples. It is clear what it does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_enduraw_race_gpx or get_enduraw_races, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would call this when it needs a race's course metrics. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use, no guidance on choosing this over get_enduraw_race_gpx (track file) or get_enduraw_races (catalog listing), and no note on how to find a valid race name.

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