list_action_contests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares 'Read-only,' discloses the 500-record truncation and nearest-deadline ordering, explains the deadline is the operator's own response_days rather than a legal deadline computed by AMR, and specifies the error shape. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and read-only status, then partitioned into Args and Returns blocks, so it is easy to scan. The Returns block is fairly long and partly duplicates the declared output schema, which costs some tightness.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with empty schema descriptions, it covers filtering, date semantics, ordering, truncation, error format, and scheduling use. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet every parameter is explained with added meaning the schema lacks — due_within_days is scoped to 0–365 and explicitly includes already-passed deadlines, and the two ID filters are described as restrictive scoping rather than required inputs. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('List contested actions') plus the distinguishing payload ('days left before their respond_by'), which separates it from the write-side sibling contest_action. An agent knows exactly what comes back without opening the schema.

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 usage context: 'Give mandate_id, contested_by, or both' and 'Call it on a schedule (for example each morning) to see which contests reach their response deadline soon.' It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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