Get Location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: ~3.7 Hz sample rate, the volume implication requiring narrow ranges, lack of lateral placement, and an arbitrary origin. It omits any auth/permission or auth-requirement notes but discloses the salient data-shape traits.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the sampling/volume caveat, then coordinate limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the key caveats (sampling rate, coordinate limits, arbitrary origin) needed to interpret results. The main gap is the undocumented bounding-box filters, but for a data-fetch tool this is largely 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?

Schema coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains date_from/date_to usage and the arbitrary (0,0,0) origin that gives x/y/z coordinate context, but the six x_min/x_max/y_min/y_max/z_min/z_max bounding-box parameters are left undefined in both schema and description.

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 resource (approximate car positions on the circuit) plus the data source (OpenF1). It implicitly distinguishes from get_positions by clarifying these are on-track coordinates rather than standings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: always narrow with date_from/date_to (e.g., a single lap) to keep responses usable. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but tells the agent how to use the tool effectively.

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