get_driver_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses plan gating and that timing fields like gap and finish time are only returned on Developer and above, but it omits pagination behavior, invalid-driver handling, and response-shape expectations.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the important plan-gating caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has four parameters, low schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose and plan gating sufficiently for basic selection, but it leaves pagination, parameter usage, and return-value expectations underspecified.

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 only 25%, with only the season parameter described in the schema. The description does not explain driverId format, limit/offset pagination, or how parameters affect returned race-by-race results, so it does not 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: get race-by-race results for a driver. It clearly distinguishes the tool from profile-oriented siblings like get_driver, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as get_driver_standings.

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 plan availability note gives useful context about when results and timing fields are accessible. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_driver, get_driver_standings, or get_race, leaving alternative selection implicit.

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