f1: Get lap times

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by noting data availability from 1996 onwards, which is a useful boundary. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences covering purpose and data range. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 query tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and data range. It could optionally describe return format or pagination details, but the schema already covers parameter descriptions. Minor gap: no mention of what lap time fields are returned.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what's in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Can return all laps or a specific lap number' summarizes the lap parameter). This is adequate but not above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get lap times for a specific race' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like f1_get_pit_stops, f1_get_qualifying, etc., by explicitly naming the resource. The additional detail about data availability from 1996 onwards adds specificity.

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?

Description implies usage context (requires season and round, data from 1996 onwards) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude when not to use. No alternative tools are suggested.

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