get_weekly_race

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. It implies a read operation but offers no confirmation beyond the action 'get'.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and direct.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It could mention sorting order or time format, but the lack of that detail is minor for a simple leaderboard tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it does not provide extra context about the absence of parameters (e.g., that it always returns the current week). This is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 retrieves the current weekly race leaderboard, specifying the resource and the data fields (top times, player, country, formatted finish time). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_leaderboard' by focusing on the weekly race context.

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 vs alternatives, such as when a more general leaderboard or player-specific history is needed. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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