formulae_team_standings

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds value by disclosing the return format, explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed,' and providing a concrete example, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, followed by return format, an example, and auth requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter, the description is quite complete: it explains the return shape, provides an example, and notes the auth requirement. The only minor gap is not explicitly pointing to formulae_championships for obtaining the championshipId, but the tool name and sibling context make this inferable.

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 documents championshipId as a required string uuid with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description provides an example value but adds little additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clearly states this returns teams' championship standings with per-race points breakdown. The verb 'standings' and resource 'teams' are specific, and it explicitly distinguishes from driver standings by naming 'teams' and providing the return structure.

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 that this is for team standings and notes it's the closest thing to race results, which guides selection when race-level data is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like formulae_driver_standings or state when not to use this, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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