Get Intervals

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 meaningful behavior: the real-time cadence (~4 second updates) and the race-only availability window. It stops short of explaining error behavior outside a race or any return/pagination characteristics, so it is good but not complete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then availability, then a parameter tip. No filler and every sentence carries usable information.

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 an output schema already covers return values, the description supplies what remains needed: what the tool returns conceptually (gaps), when it is available, how fresh the data is, and how to bound it. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is only 50%: session_key and driver_number are documented in the schema, while date_from/date_to are not. The description compensates for exactly that gap by explaining that the date parameters bound the response (e.g., closing laps), adding semantics the schema omits.

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 ('Fetch') and a well-defined resource ('real-time gaps between drivers and to the race leader'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_positions or get_laps. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the resource is described precisely enough that an agent can differentiate it.

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?

'Available during races only' gives a genuine availability condition, and the date_from/date_to hint suggests a bounding strategy. However, it never routes the agent to or away from a specific alternative (e.g., get_positions for standing) and offers no explicit when-not guidance.

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