Circuit Lap Record

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 structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the data comes from Ergast, an external source — which explains the openWorld hint. It says nothing about cache freshness, rate limits, or coverage limits of the record data.

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 tightly-written sentence with the resource, scope and source front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any guidance on the one required parameter and how this differs from the many other lap/fastest-lap tools — a gap for a lookup tool in a crowded namespace.

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% and the single required parameter is named 'gp', which is ambiguous (grand prix? circuit identifier? string format?). The description says 'a specific circuit' but never reconciles that with the parameter name or gives an expected format/accepted values.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get the all-time lap record for a specific circuit'. It states scope ('all-time') and the data source, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_fastest_lap_data or get_circuit_info, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several overlapping siblings (get_fastest_lap_data, get_circuit_info, get_historical_results). The agent must infer that this is the record (not a per-session fastest lap) entirely on its own.

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