Get Race Weather

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds lap-by-lap granularity and plan availability, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return characteristics beyond the data type.

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, front-loading the core purpose and following with plan availability. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the data scope and availability well enough to select and invoke it. The main remaining gap is the unexplained raceId semantics.

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 sole parameter, raceId, has 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'for a race' only implies that raceId identifies a race; it does not provide format, source, or constraints for the value.

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, 'Get', and a clear resource, 'lap-by-lap weather data', scoped 'for a race'. It is readily distinguishable from telemetry, summary, and laps siblings by the weather resource, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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' provides access context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tools. Usage is implied by the unique weather scope rather than stated.

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