agora_get_research_challenge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the state returned is 'public', implying no membership/auth gate, and it notes that expired votes are included in the rationales. Beyond that it says nothing about side effects (read-only), pagination, or data freshness.

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?

Two tight lines with the core purpose front-loaded and the content inventory following. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to describe return values, yet it usefully enumerates the payload (branches, submissions, rationales) to aid selection. For a read-only single-object fetch, the definition is largely complete; only access/prerequisite details are absent.

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% for the single required 'mission_id' parameter. The description never mentions the parameter or clarifies whether the id refers to a mission (as in agora_get_mission) or the challenge itself, leaving the identifier's meaning to inference.

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 ('Full public state of one Mission Challenge') and enumerates the contents (problem, deadline status, reward split, research board, submissions, review rationales). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from agora_list_research_challenges, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to inspect a single research challenge in depth. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or access requirements (e.g., whether membership is required), and no routing to alternatives like agora_list_research_challenges or agora_get_submission_thread for narrower needs.

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