openf1_starting_grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 404 failure mode and the return format, but does not cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences and a return type specification. It front-loads the purpose and is free of extraneous content.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description compensates somewhat with purpose and failure behavior. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter filtering (optional position/meeting_key) and how to obtain session_key, which limits agent understanding.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe the meaning or usage of position, meeting_key, or session_key beyond what the schema shows. The return format mentions fields but does not clarify input semantics.

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 differentiates from sibling tools like openf1_laps or openf1_position by specifying 'starting grid,' but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 mentions a sparse feed and 404 error for sessions without a grid, advising against using it for such sessions. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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