list_constructors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and the only behavioral fact offered is plan availability (no subscription gating), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination defaults, ordering, result size, or whether this is a pure read, leaving key behavior for a list endpoint undisclosed.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Brevity is achieved honestly rather than by padding, though the second sentence contributes little beyond entitlement info.

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 paginated list tool with four parameters, 25% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain pagination and the meaning of active/limit/offset. As written, an agent cannot confidently construct a filtered or paginated call from the description alone.

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 coverage is only 25%: lineage is documented in the schema, but limit, offset, and active have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the undocumented majority of parameters remain ambiguous (e.g., what 'active' means for a constructor).

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 ('List F1 constructors'), which an agent can separate from singular/detail siblings like get_constructor and from get_constructor_results or get_constructor_standings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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' is an entitlement note, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose this over get_constructor, get_constructor_results, or get_constructor_standings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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