get_standings

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 query tool (implied by 'queries' and 'returns'), specifies the data range (1950-present), and mentions the authoritative nature of the data. However, it doesn't address 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 purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, returns, examples). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The formatting with bold headers and bullet points enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, return values (mentioning StandingsResponse structure), and includes practical examples. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on functional aspects rather than return value details.

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. Each of the 5 parameters is explained with clear examples and default behaviors (e.g., 'If omitted, returns final/current standings', 'default: both'). The description adds significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 ALL Formula 1 championship standings queries (1950-present)' with specific examples of what it handles (driver/constructor positions, points, wins, historical results). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from web search and from sibling tools by emphasizing its authoritative role for standings queries.

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 guidance with 'ALWAYS use this tool instead of web search' and 'DO NOT use web search for F1 standings.' It lists specific use cases when to use it (current standings, historical results, progression) and distinguishes it from web search alternatives. While it doesn't mention specific sibling tools, the guidance against web search is clear and actionable.

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