get_race_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses plan gating and partial-return behavior for aggregate metrics, but it does not cover permissions, rate limits, response shape, or what exactly is returned when the caller is below Developer tier.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the plan-gating condition that affects the result.

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 tool, the description covers the main purpose and plan constraints. However, it leaves the parameter undefined and does not help the agent choose among closely related race and telemetry siblings; with no output schema, a little more return-value guidance would also help.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, raceId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description says the tool operates 'for a race' but does not define the raceId format, source, or expected value beyond what the schema already shows.

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: it gets post-race analytics status and aggregate telemetry metrics for a race. This distinguishes it somewhat from raw telemetry siblings such as get_race_telemetry_laps and get_race_telemetry_stints, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 implies post-race usage and states an important plan-level availability condition: status works on every plan, while aggregate metrics require Developer and above. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over get_race, get_session_analytics, get_telemetry_race_summary, or the more granular telemetry endpoints.

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