motogp_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; the description adds the return schema, an example, and explicit auth requirement ('Auth: none needed'). This supplements the structured 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?

Compact labeled sections (summary, returns, example, auth) convey maximal useful information without waste. The example JSON is integral to understanding the return shape.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by fully listing return fields and providing an example. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, it is complete for a read-only list operation.

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% parameter coverage, describing both seasonUuid and isFinished with helpful guidance. The description's example reinforces usage but does not add material semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('Grand Prix weekends in a season') with key attributes (circuit, country, dates) and a return structure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like motogp_sessions and motogp_seasons.

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 example and note that seasonUuid comes from motogp_seasons give clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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