openf1_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the return format (field list, top-level array), the special 'latest' value, and the fact that auth is not needed. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then filters, then return format and auth. No redundant or irrelevant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists all return fields and notes the top-level array. It covers auth, filter options, and the special 'latest' case. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is complete and self-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 coverage is 100% for all four parameters. The description enriches the parameter semantics by clarifying that year and country_name are filters, and by revealing the special 'latest' value for meeting_key. This is beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 resource as 'Grand Prix weekends (meetings)' and explains filtering by year/country or using meeting_key=latest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openf1_sessions and openf1_drivers by focusing specifically on meeting-level 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 gives practical usage instructions: filter by year/country or pass meeting_key=latest for the current event. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like openf1_sessions, the scope is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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