get_race_telemetry_aggression

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the plan-gating constraint, which is the most consequential behavioral fact here, but it says nothing about whether the aggression index is computed/derived, how it is scaled, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, purpose first and the access restriction second. Zero filler; every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the purpose and plan gate are covered, but an agent still doesn't know how to obtain a valid raceId or what the rankings look like. Adequate, not complete.

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 single parameter raceId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only echoes it as 'for a race'. No format, no source (e.g. from list_events or get_race), no example. The description barely compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 ('Get') and a distinctive resource ('driver aggression index rankings for a race'), which is clearly not the same as the sibling telemetry tools (laps, stints, lap comparison). It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, but the resource name is unique enough to disambiguate.

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 supplies an access prerequisite ('Requires a Custom plan, not included in Developer'), which is useful before a call is attempted, but it never says when to pick this over get_race_telemetry_laps or get_race_telemetry_stints. Usage is only implied by the word 'race'.

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