team_head_to_headCompare both drivers from the same Formula 1 team head-to-head by year, Grand Prix and session to reveal qualifying or race performance gaps.
Compare both drivers in a team head-to-head.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| team | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| session | No | Q |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on data source, session-default behavior, or coverage limits. With annotations doing the work, the description's contribution is minimal.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded, which satisfies conciseness. But it is under-specified rather than efficient, so it earns no credit beyond the minimum viable.
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. Still, for a tool with three required, undocumented parameters and no usage or scoping guidance, the description leaves critical invocation details missing.
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 four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Ambiguous names like 'gp' (round number? name? country?) and the defaulted 'session' (default 'Q') are left wholly unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('compare both drivers in a team head-to-head'), so the action is identifiable. However, it gives no differentiation from the close sibling get_driver_comparison, leaving the agent to guess which comparison tool applies. Purpose is clear but sibling-ambiguous.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The phrase 'team head-to-head' weakly implies scope (two teammates), but nothing states prerequisites such as which session type to pass or when to prefer this over get_driver_comparison. Only implied usage is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.