openf1_pit

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful information about the return format and that no authentication is needed, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss potential pagination or data nuances, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise, starting with the tool's purpose, followed by the return structure and auth requirement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively documents the return fields and their meanings. It also covers authentication. It lacks some details like the use of 'latest' for session_key, but the schema handles that, and the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 that this tool provides pit stop data, specifying the exact metrics (lap, total time in pit lane, stationary stop duration) and the return structure. This distinguishes it from other openf1_* 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving pit stop data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the name and description, but no direct guidance is provided.

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