Get Team Radio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses a critical limitation: only a limited selection of communications is included, and coverage has decreased significantly starting in 2026 with most events providing no radio data. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention read-only nature or other traits, but for a fetch tool this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently delivers a critical caveat about data completeness. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose and a key limitation. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though explicit usage guidance versus alternatives is absent. The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully, including that session_key is 'required in practice' and how to discover it. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, format, or constraint information. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('team radio exchanges between drivers and teams from OpenF1'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_race_control or get_weather, but the resource is unique enough that confusion is unlikely. A 4 is appropriate because it lacks the explicit sibling routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool fetches, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The coverage limitation hint could serve as an implicit caution, but it is not framed as usage guidance. This is the minimum viable level.

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