get_race_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned (history, statistics, route) and mentions filtering by classification, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description covers basic functionality but misses important operational context.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, usage note, examples, and return format. While slightly verbose, each section adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the examples are helpful. Minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing information.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic usage but has gaps. It explains the return format (formatted string with specific sections) which compensates for missing output schema, but doesn't fully document parameter semantics or behavioral traits. For a read operation with filtering, this is minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 must compensate. It explains that race_id identifies a specific race and mentions filtering by classification (mapping to classification_num), but doesn't specify valid ranges, formats, or examples for classification_num. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully document both parameters, especially classification_num's purpose and constraints.

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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive details about a cycling race' with specific information types (history, statistics, route). It distinguishes from siblings like search_race (which finds races) and get_race_edition_results (which focuses on results). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like get_race_victory_table.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'If you don't know the race's ID, use the search_race tool first to find it by name.' This clearly states when to use an alternative tool (search_race) and establishes a prerequisite workflow.

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