Race Winners History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the temporal windowing notion ("over the last N years"), nothing about ordering, missing seasons, or what happens for a GP not held every year.

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 zero filler; nothing is wasted and the scope constraint lands immediately.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but the ambiguous gp identifier format and absent routing among ~80 siblings leave real gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does convey both parameters semantically — which GP and how many years back — but gives no format hint for "gp" (circuit name, country, round id?) and no mention that "years" defaults to 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get race winners") with scope qualifiers ("for a specific GP over the last N years"). It is distinguishable from broader siblings like get_historical_results or list_races, but never names or contrasts them 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named despite many overlapping siblings (get_historical_results, get_race_results, list_races). The agent must infer that this is the multi-season aggregate view rather than a single-race result fetch.

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