formulae_races

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 value by disclosing the exact return shape (pageInfo and races array with fields), the fact that it is wrapped, an example request, and auth requirements. This goes beyond the structured safety hints without contradicting them.

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 organized into a short title line, a returns block, an example, and an auth note. Every section is purposeful and no word is wasted. It is slightly longer than the two-sentence ideal but remains scannable and relevant.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is quite complete: it covers scope, return fields, an example, and auth. The pageInfo field hints at pagination but omits how to fetch additional pages; however, the schema and annotations are rich enough that this is a minor gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage with 'Championship uuid. Omit for every race across all seasons.' The description restates this concept and adds a concrete UUID example, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific resource: 'The race calendar — all seasons, or one championship's rounds.' It clearly states the tool returns races and distinguishes it from sibling tools like formulae_standings by noting the response is 'WRAPPED, unlike standings.' The scope (all seasons vs. one championship) is explicit, making it easy to select over a single-race tool like formulae_race.

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?

Usage is conveyed through the optional championshipId parameter: 'Omit for every race across all seasons' and an example of filtering to one season. It also states 'Auth: none needed.' However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over a sibling like formulae_race, so it slightly misses the 'alternatives' bar.

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