apisports_formula1_races

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description goes further by issuing a critical credibility warning: the response shape is 'from the vendor's documentation and has NOT been verified against a live response' and advises to 'treat it as approximate — inspect the actual payload.' It also discloses the auth requirement. These add meaningful context beyond what annotations provide, though it stops short of describing pagination or default parameter behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Formula 1 races and sessions for a season'). It includes a return shape outline, alternative tool guidance, a caveat, an example, and auth note—all in a structured order. Slightly verbose due to the multiple caveats, but every section earns 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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a predicted response shape (albeit unverified), gives an example input, names alternatives, and notes auth requirements. It covers the essential aspects for a tool with 4 optional parameters, though it does not clarify the outcome when all parameters are omitted (e.g., does it return all races across all seasons?). Sufficiently complete for a user to understand what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter ('next', 'type', 'season', 'competition') having a concise semantic definition. The description adds an example usage with `{"season": 2023}` and mentions 'races and sessions', but does not materially enhance the schema's parameter explanations. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Formula 1 races and sessions for a season', identifying the specific resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jolpicaf1 and openf1 by explaining their different coverage (history/live telemetry) and the unique multi-sport key requirement, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives ('`jolpicaf1` (keyless) covers F1 history back to 1950 and `openf1` (keyless) covers live telemetry') and gives a clear directive: 'prefer those unless you need this one key to span sports.' This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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