Constructor Standings

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 fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on data freshness, historical vs. current season behavior, or how partial-round standings are reported.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. The problem is under-specification rather than bloat, which is penalized in the other dimensions.

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 described, and the tool itself is conceptually simple. Still, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the year/round semantics and how it relates to sibling standings tools.

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 must compensate for the two undocumented parameters, and it does not. It never explains that 'year' is required, what format it takes, or what 'round_number' means (e.g., standings after a specific round vs. end-of-season).

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 ('Get') and resource ('constructor/team championship standings'), which is clearer than a bare restatement of the name. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as get_championship_standings, get_standings, and get_driver_standings, leaving an agent to guess which standings tool is correct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_driver_standings, get_standings, or get_championship_standings, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether a season must be completed or which round the standings reflect. Usage is only implied by the name.

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