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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), but the description adds meaningful extras: the organizer-key auth requirement, the side effect that the judge will appear at getDashboard → judging.judges, and the private scorecard link format that must be shared only with that judge. It does not address re-adding an existing judge or failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentence opens by restating the title verbatim ('Contests: add a judge (judging must be on)') before delivering new content, then crams preconditions, auth, return behavior and a URL template into one run-on sentence. The actionable information is present but not well front-loaded or organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the agent gets back (the judge listed on the dashboard with a private scorecard link) and what auth is needed. Only the undocumented 'name' parameter leaves a small gap for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 only 50%: the slug property carries its own pattern description, while 'name' is undocumented. The description surfaces the slug's role through the example link but adds no constraints on the judge name (e.g., the 60-char limit), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('add a judge') and states the precondition ('judging must be on'), which clearly separates it from siblings like remove_judge and add_entries. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

'Judging must be on' and 'Needs the organizer key' give a clear precondition and authorization requirement, and 'Give it to that judge only' prescribes a follow-up action. It provides solid context but no explicit instruction on when to choose this over other judge-related tools.

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