codeforces_user_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the profile is 'public' and enumerates the data fields, which is slightly beyond annotations but does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or data freshness. With annotations present, the added value is moderate.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a simple read-only profile tool, the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description could mention the lack of filtering or performance implications, but given the straightforward nature and other structured metadata, the information 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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (handle with example, response_format with explanation). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a public profile for a Codeforces handle and lists the specific fields returned (rating, max rating, rank, organization). This is a distinct purpose, easily differentiated from siblings like rating_history or recent_submissions.

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 implies usage for getting profile data but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling tools such as codeforces_rating_history (for historical trends) or codeforces_search_problems. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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