codeforces_recent_submissions

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, and each row links to the submission on Codeforces so the code can be read. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide and contains no contradictions.

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 tight two sentences with no redundant words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a focused filtering tip and a detail about links to code. Each sentence earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps: ordering, the verdict filter use case, and the link-to-code behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call and how to interpret results, though one could imagine explicit exclusion of sibling tools, which is not necessary here.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. It does add a practical tip for the 'verdict' parameter (using it to review failures), but adds nothing for 'limit' or 'response_format' beyond what the schema states. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a handle's most recent submissions') and specifies order ('newest first'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that deal with problems, ratings, contests, and user profiles, so an agent can differentiate without ambiguity.

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 provides a concrete, actionable use case ('Filter by verdict to pull up recent failures for review') that tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that no exclusions are necessary.

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