openf1_team_radio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return format (list of fields). This is useful but the unexplained 'Also answers this: afl_live_audio' introduces a potentially misleading behavioral claim. No contradiction with annotations, but the added context is partially confusing rather than purely clarifying.

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 brief and front-loaded: purpose first, then return format, then auth. The extra line 'Also answers this: afl_live_audio' is cryptic and could be considered noise, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description provides the output fields and auth requirement, which is important given there is no output schema. However, it doesn't explain behavior when no parameters are provided, how 'latest' works in practice, or clarify the odd afl_live_audio reference. It is complete enough for basic use but leaves conceptual gaps.

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 having a brief description (e.g., 'Meeting key, or latest'). The tool description does not add further parameter usage details, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline 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 provides 'recording URLs of driver/pit-wall radio exchanges during a session', which is a specific resource with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from other OpenF1 data tools by focusing on team-radio clips. The final line 'Also answers this: afl_live_audio' is confusing and slightly muddies the purpose, but the core statement remains clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only reference to another tool is 'Also answers this: afl_live_audio', which is ambiguous and does not clarify selection criteria. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues for when this tool is the appropriate choice among the many OpenF1 and audio-related tools.

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