f1_get_driver_results

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as that results are read-only, support pagination via limit/offset, or whether it returns a list. The pagination parameters are in the schema but not explained in the description.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool and the richness of the input schema (100% coverage), the description is nearly complete. However, it could mention pagination behavior or output format, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, offering examples that are already present in schema descriptions. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states that the tool retrieves all race results for a specific driver in a given season, with example driver IDs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like f1_get_driver_standings or f1_get_race_results.

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 driver-specific results but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or suggest alternatives. For example, it does not mention that driver standings should use f1_get_driver_standings.

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