get_telemetry_race_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the subscription-tier requirement and what the response contains, which is real added value. It omits failure behavior (e.g. invalid or missing raceId, races without telemetry data), readonly confirmation, and any data-availability constraints for live vs. completed races.

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 compact clauses with the returned metrics front-loaded and the access requirement trailing appropriately. No filler, though the enumeration could be tightened into a structured list form.

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?

Without an output schema, listing the metrics is necessary and partially substitutes for one, and the tier requirement covers access control. Still missing the raceId format contract and any note on when telemetry aggregates are unavailable, which matters for an endpoint returning computed statistics.

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, so the description must compensate — yet it never mentions the parameter, its expected format, or whether it accepts a race key versus a numeric id. Only the phrase 'race-level' weakly implies a race identifier is required.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Get race-level telemetry summary') followed by an enumeration of the returned metrics (max speed, fastest driver, average throttle/brake, top aggression driver). This distinguishes it adequately from per-lap siblings such as get_race_telemetry_laps and get_race_telemetry_stints, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_race_summary or get_race_telemetry_aggression.

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 'Requires Developer or higher' clause gives a useful access prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to the seven closely-named telemetry siblings. An agent must infer that 'summary' means aggregate-over-race rather than per-lap or per-stint.

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