get_constructor_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses plan gating: timing fields (gap, finish time) are only returned on Developer and above. However, there is no info on whether those fields are omitted or null on lower tiers, no auth or rate-limit info, and no return-shape description.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the tier caveat. Slightly terse given how much is left unexplained, but nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only purpose and one behavioral caveat. Parameter meaning, result shape, and pagination behavior are all absent, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description does not explain constructorId format, what season scoping does, or that limit defaults to 20 with a max of 100, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'race-by-race results for a constructor'. This is clearly distinct from get_constructor_standings and get_driver_results, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent can identify the resource without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_constructor_standings, get_driver_results, or get_race_summary. There are also no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the plan-tier note.

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