find_past_editions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral rules: past editions share series_id, and similar events match themes/judging. This adds meaningful transparency beyond the tool name, though it does not mention side effects or permissions (which are likely irrelevant for a read-only find operation).

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 the primary purpose in the first sentence and supporting details in the second. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers the tool's purpose, selection criteria, and downstream usage. It is not a 5 because it leaves top_k undocumented and does not mention any limitations or preconditions, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains hackathon_id (the series) and include_similar ('and/or very similar ended events'), but top_k is completely unaddressed. The semantics for two out of three parameters are only hinted at, not explicitly tied to parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('past editions of this hackathon series and/or very similar ended events'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_hackathons. It also adds semantic detail by mentioning series_id and similar event matching.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (for finding past editions/similar events) and suggests a workflow ('Use results with list_winning_submissions and build_winner_playbook'). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it misses the top tier.

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