search_hackathons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently mentions 'verified, fresh' data and explicitly warns that include_demo adds synthetic fixtures for local demos only. It does not discuss side effects or auth, but these are less critical for a search tool.

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-sentence summary followed by a compact bullet list of parameter explanations. Every line adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

All seven parameters are explained, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. The description could mention pagination or result ordering, but these are not critical for a search tool and the current level is sufficient.

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 description provides detailed semantics for every parameter, including allowed enum values for date_range and mode, the meaning of stack, geography, prize_min, and include_demo. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the action ('Search') and the resource ('verified, fresh upcoming/ongoing hackathons'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_hackathon_details or discover_hackathon_urls by focusing on the filtered search capability.

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 explains what filters are available and their semantics, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would strengthen the guidance.

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