get_annual_nominee

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds material context beyond them: the 1 request/second rate limit with a ~20s worst case and the personal, non-commercial, reference-only media restriction. These are real operational constraints an agent needs.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then routing/preference, then the usage/rate caveat. No filler; each sentence adds information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully enumerates the returned fields for both entry types (date, description, designBy, country, image/video URLs vs location, avatar, award tag counts, featured projects). Combined with documented rate limits and use restrictions, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% already, so the schema documents all three params. The description nonetheless adds meaning: id can be a UUID or a full /api/annual/nominees/... path, and category+slug triggers multi-nominee hydration. This exceeds the baseline-3 expectation for full-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one official Awwwards Annual Awards nominee in full') and disambiguates from the plural list sibling get_annual_nominees by signaling it returns a single full record. The mention of two entry shapes (site vs agency) further pins down what 'one nominee' means.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: 'Pass id ... or category+slug' and 'prefer id when known' because slug lookup may hydrate up to 20 uncached nominees at ~20s worst case. It doesn't explicitly name the plural sibling as the alternative for browsing, so not a full 5.

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