get_fantasy_scores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the tier/auth requirement, flags the results as *estimated*, restricts the operation to completed races, and enumerates exactly what the scoring breakdown contains including the DNF penalty. It omits caching/rate-limit behavior and whether the underlying scoring model can change, keeping it off a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return breakdown plus the prerequisite. Every clause conveys information an agent would act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the score components returned, so an agent knows what to expect. The one-parameter schema is fully documented. Only the estimation/methodology caveat and response shape details are left implicit.

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 already documents raceId with a slug example, so baseline is 3. The description adds one genuine constraint beyond the schema - the race must be completed - but gives no guidance on lookup failure behavior or format quirks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: estimated F1 Fantasy points per driver for a completed race, and enumerates the scoring components returned. The 'fantasy points' framing cleanly separates it from other race siblings like get_race_summary or get_fantasy_pit_times, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it applies only to a *completed* race, and it names the access prerequisite ('Requires Developer or higher'). It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_fantasy_pit_times or get_race_summary) or stating what to do when a race is not yet complete.

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