discover_public_gallery

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful constraint ('only uses intentionally public pages'), which suggests a read-only, permission-respecting behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, rate limits, or whether it makes live network requests, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a relevant policy statement, achieving high information density.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present) and its clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools like discover_hackathon_urls, but for a basic lookup tool this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has one parameter named 'hackathon_id_or_url', which is self-descriptive, but the description provides zero additional meaning beyond the schema name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining accepted formats, examples, or the difference between ID and URL inputs.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('public project gallery') with a concrete outcome ('return its URL'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like discover_hackathon_urls by focusing on gallery detection specifically.

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 'Competitor intelligence only uses intentionally public pages' provides some context that this tool is intended for competitor intelligence use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over close siblings like discover_hackathon_urls or extract_public_submissions, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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