openf1_race_control

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the return format (top-level array with specific fields) and that no authentication is needed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the tool's output and access.

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, providing a one-line summary, a return format specification, and an auth note. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential return structure and auth requirement, which is especially helpful since there is no output schema. It lacks explicit details on default behavior (e.g., whether all messages are returned when no filters are applied), but the parameter schema compensates, making it sufficiently complete for a read-only feed.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., flag, category, lap_number, meeting_key, session_key, driver_number). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema—meeting the baseline of 3.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves race-control messages, listing specific message types (flags, safety cars, incidents, investigations, penalties) and identifies itself as 'the official message feed.' This distinguishes it from sibling OpenF1 tools like openf1_laps or openf1_car_data by specifying the resource and scope.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description ('official message feed') and the listed message categories, making it clear this tool is for race-control data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other OpenF1 tools, nor any when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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