openf1_starting_grid

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the 404 'No results found' response for sessions without published grids, and the exact return shape. This saves the agent from misinterpreting errors and provides parse-time expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sparse feed caveat, return format, and auth note each add essential information without redundancy. No word is wasted.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the data is, the expected return structure, potential error conditions, and authentication requirements. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke and parse results correctly.

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 already describes all three parameters (position, meeting_key, session_key) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional nuance about parameter usage or relationships, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the race starting grid with per-driver grid position and lap time. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling OpenF1 tools by the specific focus on grid 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 sparse feed warning clearly tells the agent when to expect 404 errors, which is essential context for deciding whether this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the guidance provided is clear and practical.

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