get_circuit

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the tool is plan-agnostic. It does not state whether the lookup is read-only, what happens for an unknown slug (empty vs error), whether responses are cached, or any rate limits — all of which matter for a data-endpoint 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the data returned. The trailing availability note is minor but does serve a real pre-call question (plan gating), so it earns most of its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description is close to sufficient and does name what data comes back. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks the return shape and error behavior, leaving a gap the description could have closed.

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 coverage is 100%: the single circuitId parameter is fully documented in-schema as 'Circuit slug, e.g. monaco'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get circuit details and analytics') and enumerates the payload ('compound priors, historical pace data'), which separates it from list_circuits by implying a single-record detail fetch. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of list_circuits for enumerating circuits, and no note about prerequisites such as needing a valid circuit slug from a prior lookup. 'Available on every plan' is availability/tiering information, not usage routing.

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