f1_get_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return structure (session objects with fields like session_key, session_type, date) and mentioning the meta.source, which goes beyond annotations.

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, using a clear header and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy. It is well-organized and easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required), the description fully covers the purpose, parameters, and return values. Annotations provide behavioral transparency. There is no missing information for correct invocation.

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 schema already defines both parameters with examples. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions without adding new semantic information. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well.

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 explicitly states 'Return F1 sessions for a given year, optionally filtered by country.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'F1 sessions' clearly define the action and object. Among many F1 sibling tools, this one uniquely provides session data, distinguishing it well.

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 specifies when to use the tool: to get sessions by year with an optional country filter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance. The usage scenario is clear.

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