list_insight_races

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: results are gated on pipeline completion (so the list can be a strict subset of all races) and the tool is available on every plan, hinting that plan gating is a concern elsewhere. It stops short of covering ordering, pagination, or what an entry 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 clauses with zero filler; the defining constraint is front-loaded and the plan note is a compact afterthought. Every sentence earns its place.

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-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually and the key gating rule. A brief note on result shape or ordering would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 'season' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline expectation here.

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 (List) and resource (F1 races) plus the exact qualifying condition: only races with a completed post-race analytics pipeline. It also anchors the meaning by tying it to a sibling, get_race_insights, so an agent knows this is a pre-check list rather than a general race listing.

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 'i.e. races where get_race_insights will return data' clause effectively tells the agent when to reach for this tool before calling get_race_insights. It does not explicitly name the alternative general listing (get_season_races / list_events) or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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