Pit Stop Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain semantics beyond that — definitions and typical magnitudes for stationary time (~2s) vs pit-lane time (in->out, ~20-30s) and the underlying data source (PitStopSeries + TyreStintSeries). It stops short of noting any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Get detailed pit stop data') then supplies the field definitions concisely. Two logical blocks, minimal waste, though the trailing source note is slightly redundant with the sibling-consistency claim.

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 shape need not be restated; the description appropriately focuses on the semantic meaning of the two timing fields and data provenance. The main gap is untended parameters, but for a read-only detail query this is otherwise complete.

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 three undocumented parameters (year, gp, driver). It explains none of them — no format for year, no expected value for gp, and no note that 'driver' scopes the returned stops. The 'per stop' phrasing hints at per-driver granularity but adds no usable parameter detail.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('pit stop data') and enumerates the returned fields (stationary time, pit-lane time, tyre compound swap per stop). It references sibling tools get_pit_stops / get_fastest_pit_stops to establish data consistency, which helps distinguish it, though it never states the selection boundary explicitly.

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 clarifies that durations 'match get_pit_stops / get_fastest_pit_stops' but never says when to call this tool versus those siblings or what prerequisite context (year/gp/driver) is needed. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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