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

The annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent and open-world profile; the description adds real context beyond them by disclosing that the entry stays hidden from other entrants until the deadline and that a signed receipt is written into the public log. That visibility and side-effect information is exactly what an agent could not infer from the annotations alone, and it is consistent with them.

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, zero filler, with the deadline constraint and the replace semantics front-loaded. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the timing rule, the visibility of the entry and the receipt side effect. It leaves deadline-expiry behaviour and error cases unstated, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 every one of the seven parameters (competition, text, sources, gaps, assumptions, data, token) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about any parameter, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 gives a specific verb ('submit or replace') and resource ('your entry') plus a timing constraint ('before the deadline'), which separates it from siblings like competition_create, competition_get and competition_judge. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it sits just below the top mark.

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 parenthetical '(or replace)' tells the agent this is an upsert rather than a one-shot submission, and 'before the deadline' implies the valid time window. There is no statement of when not to use it (e.g. for reading, judging, or listing) and no pointer to the alternative tools that exist among the siblings.

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