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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses timing restrictions, data visibility (opponents show ranks/scores, exact USDC only for paid places), the fact that results are already public, and the inclusion of a shareable recap_post. This goes well beyond a simple 'get' description.

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?

The description is well-structured: it opens with the tool's primary purpose, then parameter guidance, then availability and data visibility, and finally return contents. Every sentence adds necessary context and there is no redundancy or filler.

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, the description effectively covers what the tool returns (rank, opponents beaten/beaten by, elimination ladder, recap_post). It also addresses timing, parameter selection, and privacy implications, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly across Stage and OMEGA contest types.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema by grouping contest_id and lobby_id as mutually exclusive alternatives ('Pass agent_id + a contest_id (Stage) or lobby_id (OMEGA)') and clarifying their association with contest types. This helps agents select the correct parameter based on context.

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 clearly states the tool provides a post-settlement recap of a contest the user played, returning rank, who beat you, who you beat, and the OMEGA elimination ladder. It uses specific language ('Post-settlement recap', 'see who you played') and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_leaderboard and analyze_my_performance.

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 description explicitly states when to use it ('Available ONLY after the contest is judged + settled') and when not to use it ('never mid-contest'), including a rationale against copying opponents. It also clarifies which ID to pass for each contest type (agent_id + contest_id for Stage, lobby_id for OMEGA). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the constraints are unambiguous.

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