openf1_get_stints

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the action of 'getting' data. With no annotations present, the agent must assume read-only behavior, but there is no disclosure about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The description only hints at output content but not tool behavior.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. There is no unnecessary information, making it easy to parse. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as listing use cases or clarifying the relationship to sibling tools.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient for basic use. However, it does not explain what a 'stint' is, how 'tire age' is defined, or how results are ordered. Additionally, it lacks details about data ranges or the relationship to other openf1 endpoints like laps and pit stops, leaving some ambiguity for comprehensive scenarios.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (session_key, driver_number, compound), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds high-level context by naming the tool's output attributes (tire compound, stint number, etc.), but does not provide new semantic details beyond what the schema already conveys. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3.

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's function: 'Get stint data including tire compound, stint number, lap counts, and tire age for each driver.' It uses a strong verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'stint data' with concrete attributes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openf1_get_laps (lap times) and openf1_get_pit (pit stops).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where other tools (e.g., openf1_get_laps) would be more appropriate. The description leaves the agent to infer usage without any explicit context.

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