openf1_intervals

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it explicitly states 'Auth: none needed' and describes the live, sampled nature of the data. It also discloses the return format as a top-level array. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for return shape, one for auth. Every line adds value without filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 rich schema annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what data is returned, that it is sampled over time, and that no auth is needed. It does not mention pagination or volume warnings, but the schema's 'high-volume' note for driver_number partially covers this, and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Race session key, or latest.'). It only lists the output fields, not parameter syntax or semantics.

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 states the tool's function: 'Live gap data during a race — each driver's gap to the leader and interval to the car ahead, sampled over time.' This uses a specific verb+resource and explicitly names the unique output metrics (gap_to_leader, interval), distinguishing it from sibling tools like openf1_laps or openf1_position that return different data.

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 for when to use the tool ('during a race', for live gap and interval data), but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit 'when not to use' guidance. The schema's note that driver_number is 'strongly recommended — this feed is high-volume' is a parameter-level usage hint, not a tool-selection guideline.

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