get_race_tyres

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and lists the record shape, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid/unknown raceId, whether empty stints are returned, or pagination/limits for a full race field.

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?

One compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the payload fields in parentheses; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Available on every plan' is arguably noise but does convey entitlement context.

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?

With no output schema, the parenthetical field list usefully describes the return shape, which is the main thing needed. However, the undefined raceId format and the absence of any behavioral notes for a data-retrieval endpoint leave real gaps.

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% and the description offers no guidance on raceId — no format, no example, no note that it must reference a completed race. With only one parameter the gap is small, but the description adds nothing beyond the bare schema type.

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 ('Get tyre stint records for a race') and enumerates the returned fields (driver, stint number, lap range, compound, tyre age), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the close sibling get_race_telemetry_stints, which an agent could easily mistake for this 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?

'Available on every plan' addresses entitlement, not usage selection. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_race_telemetry_stints or get_race_pitstops, and no prerequisite noted (e.g., that the race must have occurred).

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