f1_get_constructors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the function (list) without revealing that the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, the lack of explicit safety or behavior details is a gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that quickly conveys purpose. It is concise and avoids verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating scope from operation) without losing brevity.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., team names, IDs, nationality). It also does not clarify what 'all-time' means or how pagination works. The lack of return value explanation makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'for a given season or all-time', which aligns with the season parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema already explains parameters, the description offers minimal extra value, meriting a baseline 3.

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 clearly states it lists Formula 1 constructors/teams, with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'constructors/teams'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like f1_get_drivers or f1_get_constructor_standings by specifying the unique resource. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'all teams' vs 'filtered by season').

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies filtering by season, it does not explicitly mention that for standongs or other related data, one should use sibling tools. The absence of any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice leaves the agent underinformed.

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