openf1_meetings

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the 'latest' feature and describes the return format, but omits details like idempotency, authentication needs, or data freshness. Minimal disclosure beyond basic functionality.

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?

Extremely concise—two sentences. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by filter guidance and return format. No filler or redundant information.

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 list tool, the description provides enough context: how to filter, special value for latest, and sample output structure. However, missing parameter documentation and no output schema means it relies on the description, which is nearly 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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'year', 'country_name' (implied), and 'meeting_key' with the special 'latest' value, but fails to mention the 'meeting_name' parameter. Adds some value but incomplete.

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 retrieves 'Grand Prix weekends (meetings)' and distinguishes from other openf1 tools (e.g., sessions, laps) by focusing on the meeting-level data. The verb 'list' is implied, and the resource is explicitly named.

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?

Provides explicit filtering options ('by year/country, or pass meeting_key=latest') and hints at the typical use case (current event). However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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