f1_get_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds real non-schema behavior: Jolpica is primary and a FastF1 fallback sums per-race points and omits sprint points, which affects interpretation of totals. It stops short of rate limits or staleness/freshness semantics, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing rules in two tight sentences. The Returns block largely duplicates the existing output schema, which is some wasted weight, though the source-adapter line is genuinely additive.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the use case, the sibling alternative, sport scoping, and the source-fallback caveat that no structured field expresses.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description only restates the example year (2026) without adding format or range constraints.

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?

Specific verb (return) plus resource (F1 driver and constructor championship standings) scoped to a year. It also explicitly disclaims cricket/football and names the adjacent simulation sibling, so it is distinguishable without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use trigger ("who is leading / who will win the F1 championship this year") and routes the probability question to f1_simulate_championship, plus a hard negative boundary against cricket/football tools. Nothing is left to inference.

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