openf1_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the data frequency (~3.7 Hz), high volume, and return structure (top-level array with fields). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 concise with two well-structured parts: purpose/volume warning and return format. Key information is front-loaded, though the high volume note could be more prominent.

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 is relatively simple, and the description covers purpose, volume, and return format. However, it lacks details on sorting, pagination, or how the suggested date window filtering should be applied, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, leaving the description to compensate. It mentions required parameters session_key and driver_number but does not explain their meaning or the optional meeting_key. The suggestion of a date window is not reflected in the schema parameters.

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 it provides car (x, y, z) track position at ~3.7 Hz, specifying the resource and data type. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like openf1_position, which may offer similar 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?

It warns about high volume and recommends always passing session_key and driver_number, and ideally a date window. This provides usage context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools guidance.

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