f1_get_race_results

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation. Beyond that, the description adds specific return fields (finishing order, times, grid positions, points, fastest laps) and the data source, which provides useful behavioral context.

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, well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, and every sentence serves a purpose. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, read-only, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. No gaps are evident.

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%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed. The description repeats the same information ('Championship year (e.g. 2025)') without adding new semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('Return the final classification') and clearly identifies the resource ('one F1 race'). It distinguishes itself from sibling F1 tools like f1_get_drivers and f1_get_lap_times by focusing on race results.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., f1_get_sessions or f1_get_lap_times). Usage is implied through the parameter description (year and round), but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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