request_hint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool advances the hint level and that this action makes community-solutions tools callable only after level 4. It also lists the hint levels. This is good behavioral transparency, though it could mention potential state changes or idempotency.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The core action and hint progression are front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and progression. It could mention the return format or behavior at max level, but it is largely complete for a hint-advancement tool.

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% with a description for the single parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'URL slug of the problem the user is working on.' Hence, no extra value is provided, conforming to baseline 3.

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 that the tool advances the hint level and returns the next hint, listing the specific levels. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on hint progression, and mentions unlocking community solutions. The verb 'advances' and resource 'hint level for an active session' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: hints must be driven to level 4 to unlock community-solutions tools. It implies when to use it (when hints are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context about unlocking solutions is helpful but lacks exclusions.

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