Career statistics for a driver

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context beyond the title: the domain term 'kusk', the fields included, and the requirement for the statistics product. However, it does not disclose whether this is purely read-only, whether special permissions are needed, how results are ordered, or the meaning of 'strongest tracks'. This is partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential information: the resource, the output contents, and a prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter statistics tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the subject, the fields returned, and an important requirement. It could mention how to interpret 'strongest tracks' or what happens when the statistics product is unavailable, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 100% and the only parameter, driver_id, is already described in the schema. The description adds context that 'driver' refers to a 'kusk', which helps disambiguate from horse/trainer/track identifiers, but it does not explain the expected format, source, or validation of driver_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the resource ('one driver') and the contents ('starts, wins, win percentage and strongest tracks'), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_horse_statistics and get_trainer_statistics by focusing on a driver. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but 'Career record' conveys the retrieval intent.

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 this is for a single driver's career stats and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the statistics product'). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe exclusions. The one-driver qualification and sibling names provide indirect usage context, but not direct guidance.

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