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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and adds context by specifying 'public' race weekend and listing selector constraints. Annotations already cover the core behavioral traits, so the description provides limited additional transparency.

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 a single 20-word sentence that delivers all essential information upfront. There is no redundant or extraneous content; every word serves a purpose.

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 the presence of a complete output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and unique constraints. It does not need to explain return values or further behavior.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds the notion of 'friendly selector' and reinforces the oneOf constraint, but this is already implied by the schema structure. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'one public Formula 1 race weekend'. It lists the exact selectors (meeting key, round, race name, or slug), distinguishing it from sibling tools that may list multiple or require different identifiers.

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 clearly states the required inputs: a season and exactly one of the four selectors. This provides direct usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like get_f1_season_schedule or get_f1_race_preview.

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