get_reference_data

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 communicates that this is a read-only reference tool (implied by 'reference data'), provides authoritative historical data, covers the temporal scope (1950-present), and mentions default behavior for the year parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly address potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness.

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 and efficiently organized with clear sections (primary purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, returns, examples). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The bold formatting effectively highlights key directives while maintaining readability.

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 (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (Returns: ReferenceDataResponse), the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, all parameter meanings, and includes comprehensive examples. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context.

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 explaining all three parameters in detail. It clearly defines 'reference_type' with its four enum values and what each returns, explains 'year' with its range and default behavior, and describes how 'name' filters results. The examples demonstrate practical usage of all parameters, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the 'PRIMARY TOOL for Formula 1 reference data and static information (1950-present)' and provides specific examples of what it retrieves (driver info, team details, circuit information, tire compounds). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from web search and from sibling tools that focus on telemetry, live data, sessions, or analysis rather than reference data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('ALWAYS use this tool instead of web search for F1 reference queries') and when not to use alternatives ('DO NOT use web search for F1 reference data'). It lists specific query types that should use this tool, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that handle different data types like telemetry, live intervals, or session details.

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