openf1_stints

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description adds 'Auth: none needed' and enumerates the exact return fields, providing useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and no negative behaviors are hidden.

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 three concise lines: purpose, return signature, and auth. Every sentence carries value and the structure is front-loaded with the main intent.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies the return array and its fields, plus auth requirements. For a simple read-only list endpoint with well-documented parameters, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 100%, with each parameter already explained (e.g., 'Filter by tyre compound'). The description merely echoes 'compound' and 'tyre age' without adding new semantic details, 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 opens with 'Tyre stints — compound and tyre age per driving period' and explicitly lists the return fields (stint_number, driver_number, lap_start, lap_end, compound, tyre_age_at_start, session_key), giving a specific and unambiguous resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like openf1_laps or openf1_pit.

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 clearly defines what data is returned and the context (per driving period), making it obvious when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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