formulae: Get championships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the output format (list with ids and status) and the temporal range, which are not in the annotations. No contradictions.

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. The first sentence clearly states purpose and scope; the second explains downstream use. Every word contributes value; no fluff.

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 list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned (ids, status), the time range, and how to use the output. However, it does not define possible values for 'status' (e.g., past, current, future), which would enhance completeness. Overall adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%. The description explains what the tool returns (list of championships with ids and status), which adds semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('Formula E championships'), defines scope ('one per season, from 2014-15 to the current season'), and mentions output fields ('ids and status'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling standings tools by stating that the id feeds those tools.

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 provides clear context: use this to obtain championship ids for subsequent standings queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the connection to standings tools implicitly guides usage. No exclusions are given.

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