formulae_race

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed' and the limitation 'there is no results payload on this host,' plus the presence of hasRaceResults/hasSessionResults flags. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could be more explicit about error 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 compact and covers purpose, return fields, an example, and auth in four short sections. The example formatting is a bit ambiguous (it looks like an input payload but is presented as an example), and the 'see the docs' reference is vague, but there is no unnecessary filler.

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-only tool with good annotations, this description is fairly complete: it explains the return shape, the absence of results payload, and authentication. It could mention how to obtain the raceId (though the schema implies it comes from formulae_races), but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter raceId, including the description 'Race uuid from formulae_races. Required — part of the URL path.' The description adds an example but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 states 'One race's detail: circuit, city, date and whether results exist,' which clearly identifies the tool as a detail/retrieval endpoint for a single race. It lists the specific resource (race) and differentiates from the plural sibling formulae_races by emphasizing 'One race's detail.'

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to get race metadata and existence flags. It explicitly notes 'there is no results payload on this host,' implicitly telling the agent not to use this tool for race results. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for results or for listing races, relying on the schema reference to formulae_races.

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