Circuit Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which data is returned (corners, DRS zones), but says nothing about data availability by season, whether circuits repeat across years, or what happens if a gp/year has no layout data.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. However, brevity here trades away needed parameter guidance rather than being purely efficient.

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 explanation is not required, but with two mandatory parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no usage guidance, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently without guessing the 'gp' convention.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two required parameters, yet it never mentions them. It does not clarify the expected format of 'gp' (circuit name vs. country vs. code) or valid year ranges, which is a real gap for a required string identifier.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('track layout info') and enumerates the return content (Corners, DRS Zones), which separates it from siblings like get_track_record or get_session_info. It is clear, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named record/track tools by name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that both year and gp are mandatory. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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