get_race_results_historical

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

While no annotations exist, the description discloses the data source (Ergast API via FastF1), coverage (1950-present), and return fields. It lacks details on rate limits or latency but adequately covers read behavior for a historical data tool.

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, front-loads the key purpose, and uses a clear structure with bullet points for parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage guidance, data source, and return field list, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 should compensate, but it merely lists parameter names (year, round_num) without adding semantics like valid ranges, formats, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving historical race results (pre-2018 or when session data unavailable), distinguishes it from the sibling get_session_results, and specifies the data source and coverage period.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (pre-2018 races) and directs to the preferred alternative (get_session_results for 2018+), providing clear context for tool selection.

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