get_constructor

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

No annotations are provided, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get'. The description adds useful context that lineage history is included and that the tool is available on every plan, though it does not discuss error behavior, authentication needs, or response shape.

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 two short clauses with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful scope detail and availability note.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema, it only broadly says 'profile including lineage history' and does not clarify what profile fields are returned.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents constructorId as a constructor slug with an example ('red_bull'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given complete schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a constructor profile') and adds meaningful scope with lineage history (predecessor and successor teams). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_constructor_results and get_constructor_standings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It states availability ('Available on every plan') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_constructors, get_constructor_results, or get_constructor_standings. The single-constructor lookup is implied only by the resource name and required constructorId.

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