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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: visibility gating, what contests return (categoryResults, judgeResults), and explicit exclusions (written answers and individual judge scores are never included). That privacy boundary is valuable disclosure.

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?

Content is front-loaded and dense with useful facts, but the opening clause simply restates the tool title before getting to the visibility rule. Minor redundancy, otherwise no wasted sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the returned result shapes and the privacy exclusions. It covers enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool, though the public/private visibility semantics could be spelled out slightly more.

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 there is a single slug parameter whose format and example origin are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource (retrieving results) and enumerates the three shapes it can return (vote tallies, survey totals, hunt leaderboard), which is concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_responses or export_csv, so it stops short of 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?

It gives one conditional: 'Public when the organizer made results visible; otherwise send the organizer key,' which is useful auth guidance. However, it never says when to choose get_results over export_csv or list_responses, so alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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