Get Drivers Championship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the tool only works for race sessions and the endpoint is beta with fields subject to change without notice. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and the shape of returned standings, but the beta-volatility warning is genuinely useful context.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action first and the qualifiers following; no filler and nothing redundant. Each sentence carries a distinct piece of information (what, availability constraint, stability caveat).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be described, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description covers availability and stability, but nothing explains how the returned standings differ from the 'view' variant, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 both parameters (session_key, driver_number) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'latest' sentinel and the discovery path. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch drivers championship standings') plus the data source (OpenF1), which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_drivers_championship_view', so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

'Only available for race sessions' is an explicit precondition for use, and the schema further routes the agent to get_sessions with session_type='Race' for discovery. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusion or comparison against the near-identical 'view' sibling.

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