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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one concrete behavioral detail: entry QR codes are never included when scanning is required. That's useful but thin; there's no note on what gets returned or pagination. Not contradictory, but the added value over annotations is modest.

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 opening clause duplicates the title verbatim, and the sentence lists data types without a clear action verb. It is short but not front-loaded with what the tool does, making it hard to scan.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is mostly adequate on structured fields but fails to state the tool's core action. It leaves ambiguity about whether this retrieves, searches, or modifies a campaign.

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% and the slug parameter already has a detailed description with pattern and example. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., error behavior on unknown slug). Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 restates the title/name rather than stating what the tool does. It is a noun phrase ('A contest, survey or hunt as the public sees it') with no verb indicating retrieval, and no differentiation from siblings like get_results or get_dashboard. The added sentence about entries/questions/checkpoints describes data fields, not the tool's action.

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 phrase 'Public: no key needed' implies a read access context, which suggests when it can be used (unauthenticated public view). However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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