Live Best Sectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: no authentication is required, which affects callability. It stops short of noting refresh cadence or live-session-only availability.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the payload (what is returned and its ordering) front-loaded before the operational note. Every clause carries information.

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?

No params and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values; it still correctly states the resource and ranking. It is nearly complete, missing only the live-session scoping and differentiation from the several overlapping sector/personal-best siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the scoring baseline this dimension is a 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameters that do not exist.

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 resource (live personal-best sector times and overall best lap per driver) plus ranking order by lap position. This is distinguishable from plain live sector data, though the description never names the close siblings get_live_sector_times or get_personal_best_laps to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The only contextual statement is 'No auth required', which is a prerequisite, not routing information. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this beats get_live_sector_times or get_fastest_sectors.

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