getContestEffectById

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or return behavior. The lack of detail limits agent understanding of the tool's safety and constraints.

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 concise at one sentence, front-loading the action and resource. No redundant information. However, it is very brief, which limits context but does not waste 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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what a contest effect is, how the ID is used, or what 'information' the response contains. A bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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% with the parameter 'id' described as 'The ID of the contest effect.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('get information') and the specific resource ('contest effect') by its ID, making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getContestTypeByName' and 'getSuperContestEffectById' through the resource and lookup method.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getContestTypeByName or getSuperContestEffectById). There are no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or context indicators.

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