motogp: Get riders

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral insight by specifying the output fields (name, number, country, team) and the optional filtering behavior. 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details (data fields, optional filter). No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (0 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and optional parameter. It does not mention return format or edge cases, but it is adequate for a straightforward list operation. With annotations providing safety context, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'category_uuid' is described as 'Category UUID to filter riders (optional)'). The description merely restates this ('Optionally filter by category UUID'), adding no further meaning. 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 explicitly states the action ('List'), the resource ('MotoGP riders'), and the data included ('profile data (name, number, country, team)'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like motogp_get_categories or motogp_get_standings by focusing on rider profiles.

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 the context to use this tool (to list riders) and mentions an optional filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools, more guidance would be helpful.

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