openf1_get_team_radio

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states it returns metadata and URLS, but omits details like rate limits, whether URLs are publicly accessible, required authentication, or side effects. As a read operation, more context on safety would be beneficial.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value: states action, resource, and return type. Efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous detail.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it retrieves metadata and audio URLs. However, it lacks details on the structure of the metadata (e.g., timestamps, driver info) which an agent might need to process the response. Still minimally 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 each parameter already described clearly (session_key required, driver_number optional). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for a session'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves team radio message metadata for a session and includes URLs to audio recordings. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like openf1_get_car_data or openf1_get_laps, which cover other data types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other openf1 tools for different data types). The description does not specify prerequisites or context for usage beyond 'for a session'.

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