get_pit_stops

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

The description discloses data source (FastF1 Live Timing), coverage (2018-present), duration calculation method, and filtering of implausible stops (>120s) as artifacts. This provides good behavioral context despite no 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 well-structured with sections for args, returns, and a note about filtering. It is concise but includes necessary details; could be slightly shorter but no wasted sentences.

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 output schema exists, the description provides comprehensive context: data source, coverage, parameter semantics, return field listing, example, and important behavioral notes about duration and filtering.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by clearly explaining both parameters: year (2018+) and event (race name or round number). The example demonstrates usage.

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 states 'Get all pit stops from a race' and specifies data source and coverage. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_lap_times and get_fastest_laps which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for retrieving pit stop data with required year and event parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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