find_similar_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool 'finds' neighbors, implying read-only behavior, but gives no detail on output, ranking criteria, pagination, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that doesn't meaningfully inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 apparent simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic idea. However, it lacks context about required input relationships (e.g., why both project_id and hackathon_id_or_url are needed) and does not clarify the notion of 'nearest'. For a tool with no annotations and many related siblings, this is only minimally complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While the schema property names are somewhat self-explanatory (project_id, hackathon_id_or_url, top_k), the description adds no semantic context about their roles or relationships, such as how hackathon_id_or_url scopes the search or how top_k limits results.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Find' and specific resource 'nearest public submissions to the user project', with clarifying parenthetical 'similarity neighbors'. This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like extract_public_submissions or cluster_competitor_projects, which have different purposes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for identifying similar public submissions relative to a user project, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and schema.

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