frontier_draws_available_prizes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels at it. It discloses 24-hour caching, 100-row/256 KiB limits with truncation notices, cache keying, a single GET request, lack of auto-fetch, filter forwarding semantics, and refusal of oversized records. This is unusually thorough.

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 a dense single paragraph with several run-on constructions (e.g., missing period before 'Does not auto-fetch'). While every sentence carries useful behavioral information, the lack of structure and overwrought phrasing makes it harder to parse than necessary. It would benefit from bullet points or shorter sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It states that array responses are bounded and truncation is reported, but it does not hint at the actual fields of a prize (e.g., name, rarity, quantity). For a simple no-parameter tool, this is a moderate gap; an agent knows it gets a list but not what a prize entry contains.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description mentions 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' as if parameters existed, which is slightly confusing given the empty schema, but since there are no parameters, it does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Read currently available frontier draw prizes,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like frontier_draws_recent_prizes or frontier_draws_prize_overview by focusing on 'available' prizes, which is a different concept.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as frontier_draws_recent_prizes or ranked_draws_available_prizes. The description focuses entirely on behavioral details (caching, bounds) but never states a selection criterion or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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