Deleted Laps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully explains WHY laps are deleted (track limits/violations), but omits the session scope, the default 'Q' behavior, and any pagination or return-shape context. It adds some value beyond annotations but not much.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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. However, with no parameter documentation, no usage guidance, and a non-obvious defaulted session parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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% across three parameters (gp, year, session), and the description explains none of them. It never clarifies that 'gp' means a Grand Prix identifier, what 'year' implies, or that 'session' defaults to qualifying ('Q'), leaving the agent to guess at required input formats.

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?

Specifies a clear verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('laps deleted due to track limits or other violations'), which is a scope no sibling covers. It is not tautological like the title 'Deleted Laps' alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings such as get_lap_times or get_penalties.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., qualifying vs race sessions). Usage must be inferred from the name and the deletion-reason phrase.

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