Teams championship (beta)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the race-sessions-only restriction, but says nothing about result scope (per-team rows for one session?) or the summary behaviour on large results, which the schema only hints at.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the scope statement front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 six-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is thin: it does not clarify the granularity of returned rows or that points_start/position_start vs _current correspond to 'before and after'. Annotations carry the safety story, but the description leaves the data shape under-explained.

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 100%, so limit, fields, filters, team_name, meeting_key and session_key are already fully documented. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond reinforcing that session_key should point at a race session; baseline 3 applies where the schema does the work.

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?

Names the resource precisely (teams championship points and position) and its temporal scope ('before and after a race'), which also implicitly separates it from get_championship_drivers. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource ('get/list'), but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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?

'Race sessions only' is a real usage constraint that excludes sprint/qualifying/practice sessions, which is valuable guidance. However, it never names the sibling alternative (get_championship_drivers) or states the condition that would route an agent there instead, so usage is only implied.

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