openf1_team_radio

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

No annotations provided. The description only mentions the return structure but doesn't disclose behavior traits such as rate limits, authentication, error handling, or pagination. For a simple data retrieval tool, minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing return fields. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

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% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, data constraints, or behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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 has 3 optional parameters (meeting_key, session_key, driver_number) with 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess how to use them for filtering. The return structure hints at their purpose but does not clarify.

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 it returns team-radio clips (recording URLs) for driver/pit-wall radio exchanges during a session, and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by being specific to radio clips, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other openf1 tools like openf1_car_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does without usage advice.

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