get_live_intervals

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 mentions 'real-time' data and OpenF1 as the source, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence earns its place, providing necessary information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function, followed by well-organized supporting details.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides good coverage. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately explains all parameters. However, it could better address behavioral aspects given the lack of annotations.

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 compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies year constraints (2023+), provides country examples, lists valid session_name options, and explains driver_number's optional filtering purpose. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify exact format requirements for country names.

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 with specific verbs ('Get real-time gaps and intervals between drivers') and identifies the data source (OpenF1). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_laps, get_live_pit_stops, and get_stints_live by focusing specifically on interval/gap data rather than lap times, pit stops, or stint information.

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 implied usage guidance through examples showing when to use the optional driver_number parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_session_results or compare_driver_telemetry. The examples demonstrate different use cases but don't articulate clear decision criteria.

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