openf1_championship_teams

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context: the return array shape with specific fields, the before/after session semantics, and the absence of authentication 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?

The description is highly concise: two sentences plus a return format and an auth note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no wasted text.

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 comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the return format and the before/after context. The schema clarifies session_key as 'Race session key', and the return field list provides sufficient detail.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (session_key, meeting_key, team_name) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the schema carries the burden and is adequate.

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 retrieving constructors' championship standings with positions and points before and after a session. This distinguishes it from driver championship standings (e.g., openf1_championship_drivers) and other race-specific tools.

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 implies usage for constructor/team championship standings based on the name and content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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