competition_data_summary

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

The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial, but the purpose is adequately conveyed.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter docs), but there is no waste.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks behavioral details but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 single parameter 'competition' lacks description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds 'Competition URL suffix (e.g. 'titanic')', which provides needed context beyond the schema.

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 states 'Get data files summary for a competition' with a clear verb and resource, and includes an example for the competition parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like competition_files or competition_download.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many competition-related sibling tools, explicit usage context would help an agent choose correctly.

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