get_irating_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves iRating history data but does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, data range, or what happens if the category is invalid. This lack of transparency for a simple retrieval tool is a notable gap.

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 four sentences: the first two state the purpose, the third adds charting context, and the fourth lists the category mapping. It is front-loaded and each sentence provides useful information without redundancy. Slightly verbose due to repetition between sentence 1 and 2, but still concise overall.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete for basic usage. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter means. However, it does not describe the format or structure of the returned data, which would be helpful for charting without an output schema. A bit more detail on the return type (e.g., array of {date, irating} objects) would increase completeness.

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, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly mapping integer values to category names (e.g., '1 is oval'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type 'integer'. This allows the agent to correctly select the category. However, it could also mention that the parameter is required and that it corresponds to a license category.

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 'Get the iRating data for a specific license category' and 'Retrieves the user's iRating history data', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_iracing_profile_stats' by focusing on historical data for charting, implying a different use case (history vs. profile stats).

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 explains the tool is for retrieving historical iRating values 'for charting', which gives a clear use context. It also provides the mapping of category IDs (1-6), which serves as a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly with the sibling, though the context is strong enough.

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