get_enduraw_races

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey useful scope context — the dataset size (329+ races) and sample race names — and the verb 'Queries' signals a read operation. However, it says nothing about pagination, result caps, whether an empty query returns everything, or whether any auth is required, which matter for a catalog 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the race examples and returned fields packed into a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the inline list of race names is somewhat decorative rather than functional.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain, scale, and the main returned fields. It still omits what 'query' matches against (name only? location? distance?) and what happens when it is omitted, which an agent would need to use it confidently.

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 'query' parameter already documents its own examples ('CCC', 'UTMB', 'Sainté'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Queries the Enduraw official races database') and enumerates the fields returned (elevation gain/loss, distances, date), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_enduraw_race_course_profile or get_enduraw_race_gpx, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_enduraw_race_course_profile and get_enduraw_race_gpx operating on the same race domain, the absence of any routing guidance ('use this to discover a race, then use X for course detail') is a clear gap. Only the word 'Queries' hints at a catalog/search role.

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