openf1_stints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only data retrieval (returns stints data) and provides the return structure. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, rate limits, or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple data tool.

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 two sentences, compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a clear return type. No wasted words, but could benefit from a brief usage note.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and overall purpose. However, it omits parameter descriptions and usage context, which are necessary for complete understanding. The provided information is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, and the description does not explain parameter semantics (e.g., that session_key is required, or how compound, meeting_key, driver_number filter results). The return field list gives some context, but agents lack guidance on how to set parameters correctly.

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 resource 'tyre stints' and the data returned (compound, tyre age per driving period). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openf1_laps or openf1_pit by focusing on stint-specific data. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, slightly reducing action clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., openf1_laps for lap times, openf1_pit for pit stops). It does not specify prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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