get_historical_results

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states the tool returns historical results and lists parameters, but does not explain how multiple filters interact (AND/OR), default behavior when all params default, or whether results are paginated. Basic purpose is clear but deeper behavioral context is lacking.

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?

The description is succinct: one sentence summary followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and 3 optional parameters, the description covers the time range and param meanings adequately. However, it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., combining year and driver) or any limitations (e.g., result limits), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 compensate. It provides clear meaning for each parameter: year (specific year, 0 = current season), race (circuit name with examples), driver (driver ID with examples). This adds significant value beyond the schema's property titles and defaults.

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 tool name and description clearly specify 'Get historical F1 race results' with a defined time range 'from 1950 to present'. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_live_* (real-time) and get_championship_standings (standings).

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 implies usage for historical data via the name and time range. While it does not explicitly exclude live tools or provide when-not guidance, the context from sibling names (e.g., get_live_lap_times) makes the distinction clear.

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