formulae: Get race

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond being a read operation, but it consistently describes a read operation. It provides useful context on what details are included (sessions, circuit, schedule) without contradicting 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?

The description is only two sentences, highly concise, and immediately conveys the purpose and input requirement without extraneous 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, but rich annotations), the description covers all necessary points: what the tool does, what input is needed, and where to obtain that input. It enables correct invocation without ambiguity.

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 does not add meaning beyond the input schema; it simply restates the same guidance ('Race id from formulae_get_races'). Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is straightforward, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves details for a single Formula E race, specifying what the details include (sessions, circuit, schedule). It explicitly references the sibling tool 'formulae_get_races' for obtaining the race id, distinguishing it from that listing tool.

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 a clear prerequisite by specifying to use a race id from 'formulae_get_races'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the sibling context makes it evident.

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