motogp_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, which cover safety. The description adds that no authentication is needed—a useful behavioral fact—and clarifies the exact return structure with session type enums. No contradictions with 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 compact and well-organized: a one-line summary, a return type definition, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every section earns its place with no 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 two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, and usage. It provides the return fields, an example, the race-selection hint, and auth requirement, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully documents both parameters, including that both are required and one alone returns 400. The description's example with real UUIDs adds context but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as returning session data (practice, qualifying, sprint, race) for one class at one event. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like motogp_standings and motogp_session_classification by focusing on session listings rather than results or standings.

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 a concrete example showing how to request MotoGP sessions for a round, and includes guidance to pick type 'RAC' for the race. It clearly implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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