get_driver_radio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying the data source (official OpenF1 data), time range (2023-present), and what the tool provides (audio URLs, transcripts). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (primary tool declaration, usage guidelines, parameters, returns, examples). Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The formatting with bold headers and bullet points enhances readability while maintaining efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, return values, and examples. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns without needing to detail the response structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose, valid values, defaults, and provides concrete examples. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, especially with the driver number mappings (e.g., '1=Verstappen, 44=Hamilton').

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 purpose as retrieving Formula 1 team radio messages and communications from 2023-present. It specifies the exact resource (team radio messages) and distinguishes it from web search alternatives, making it highly specific and differentiated from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines with 'ALWAYS use this tool instead of web search' and specific examples of when to use it (e.g., 'What did [driver] say on the radio?'). It also clearly states 'DO NOT use web search for team radio' and positions this as the PRIMARY TOOL for this domain, offering clear alternatives and exclusions.

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