formulae: Get races

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds pagination behavior and the inclusion of result-availability flags, which is useful context but not extensive behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, includes necessary usage details, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 one optional parameter and robust annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, pagination, and how outputs connect to other endpoints. No output schema exists, but the field list is explicitly mentioned, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter (page, 0-based integer). The description reinforces the pagination concept by saying 'Paginated — use `page` to advance,' but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists Formula E races with specific fields (id, name, country, city, date, result-availability flags). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that each race id feeds other endpoints (formulae_get_race / formulae_get_race_results), establishing this as the list endpoint.

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 mentions pagination using the `page` parameter and explains how the output relates to other tools. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the clear listing purpose provides sufficient implicit guidance.

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