get_rider_monument_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information will be returned (positions, times, achievements, chronological organization) and the output format (formatted string), but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a read operation.

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, context, prerequisites, examples, and return format. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the core purpose followed by practical guidance is effective.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, usage prerequisites, examples, and detailed return format. The main gap is lack of error case information, but otherwise it's quite complete for this complexity level.

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 for the single parameter (rider_id), the description compensates by explaining what the parameter represents (rider's ID) and providing guidance on how to obtain it (use search_rider tool). The examples also demonstrate proper usage with specific rider IDs.

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: 'Retrieve detailed results for a rider in cycling's five Monument races' with specific resources (rider's performance data) and scope (five named races). It distinguishes from siblings like get_rider_grand_tour_results by focusing exclusively on Monument races.

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 ('If you don't know the rider's ID, use the search_rider tool first') and includes two concrete usage examples. It clearly positions this tool for Monument-specific results versus other rider result tools.

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