f1_team_radio

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves messages, with no mention of read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or response characteristics. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but given the tool's simplicity, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Despite the tool having only two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as the structure of the returned data, any time or session constraints, and how this tool fits among the F1 siblings. More context would improve the agent's ability to use it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no explanations for parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to 'session_key' or 'driver_number', failing to clarify their purpose (e.g., what a session key represents or how to obtain a driver number).

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 that the tool retrieves Formula 1 team radio messages from the OpenF1 data source, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team radio messages'). This distinguishes it from sibling F1 tools that retrieve other data types (e.g., car data, drivers, laps).

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 the many sibling F1 tools (e.g., f1_car_data, f1_weather). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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