openf1_championship_teams

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

Discloses return fields and that it provides before/after data for a session. No annotations to contradict, but lacks description of behavioral traits like data freshness or access requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second details return structure. No unnecessary words.

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?

Return fields are explained, but parameters are not. For a tool with required session_key, missing guidance on how to obtain it. No output schema; description partially compensates by listing fields.

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?

Schema parameter descriptions are 0% covered. Description does not explain the parameters (team_name, meeting_key, session_key) or their roles, leaving them ambiguous.

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 it returns constructor championship standings with points and positions before/after a session. Distinguishes from sibling tool openf1_championship_drivers which is for drivers.

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?

Implies usage for constructor standings but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives mentioned.

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