pit_stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it address potential errors or limitations. However, the absence of such information is not critical for a simple retrieval tool, and the description does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 two sentences plus an Args list, with no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy to read quickly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidance, and parameter details. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'driver' parameter: 'Driver name/code, or "all" for every driver (default: all).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, clarifying acceptable values and defaults.

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 states the action: 'Get pit stop details' and specifies what details (when each driver pitted and which tyre). It also lists specific use cases like pit strategy and undercut/overcut timing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tire_stints.

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 provides usage scenarios: 'Use this when the user asks about pit strategy, when someone pitted, how many stops a driver made, or undercut/overcut timing.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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