get_race_edition_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes what the tool returns (formatted string with race details, results, rider info) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether results are cached/live. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves significant behavioral context unspecified.

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 and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, adds filtering context, provides prerequisite guidance, gives concrete examples, and details the return format. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose, usage, and return format. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context (rate limits, errors, etc.) or detailed parameter semantics (what classification numbers mean, valid ranges).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only provide parameter names), the description must compensate. It effectively explains the purpose of race_id and year through examples, clarifies that classification_num and stage_num are optional filters, and shows how they work together. However, it doesn't explain what classification_num values represent or provide format details for any parameters.

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 with specific verb ('Get detailed results') and resource ('for a specific edition of a cycling race'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_race_details (which likely provides metadata) or search_race (which finds races). It explicitly mentions what results include: rankings, time gaps, and statistics.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it instructs to use search_race first if the race ID is unknown, and mentions filtering by classification or stage. It also gives three concrete example use cases that illustrate different parameter combinations.

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