frontier_draws_entries_completed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the 100-row and 256 KiB limits, the truncation notice, the lack of auto-pagination, the forwarding of filters without implying effectiveness, and the refusal of oversized records. This is exceptionally transparent and goes beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it repeats the '100 rows and 256 KiB' limit twice (once for the upstream list, once for array responses), which is slightly redundant. The structure is logical, but the repetition could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the limits, truncation behavior, pagination policy, and edge-case handling. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret the response, even without annotations or an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists, and the schema has no description (coverage 0%). The description clarifies that the id is numeric and refers to a frontier draw, which adds some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain what a frontier draw id is or how to obtain it, and the statement 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' is vague. The description adds minimal value over the schema's type and range constraints.

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 the action ('Read'), the resource ('completed-entry rows'), and the scope ('for one explicit numeric frontier draw id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frontier_draws_complete or frontier_draws_recent_prizes, which serve different purposes.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving completed entries for a specific draw id. It implies the use case (when you have a frontier draw id and need its completed entries) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context from the name and sibling list is sufficient, but explicit routing would be stronger.

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