openf1_pit

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It merely states it provides pit stop data but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, or query limitations.

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 very concise: two sentences. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and many sibling tools. Efficiency is good, but completeness suffers.

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?

Given the presence of 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to filter data, what the fields mean, or how this tool relates to other openf1 tools.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters (lap_number, meeting_key, session_key, driver_number). The description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 returns pit stop data including lap, total time in pit lane, and stationary stop duration per driver. It lists the return fields, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like openf1_laps or openf1_stints.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes openf1_laps and openf1_stints which may also relate to pit stops, but there is no comparison or exclusionary advice.

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