frontier_draws_prize_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses 24-hour caching, bounded success caching keyed by exact query, single logical GET behavior, no continuation-page auto-fetch, local row/size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is rich, concrete transparency with no contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral details are valuable. However, the second sentence is a run-on with a missing period before 'Does', and some boilerplate about required inputs and filters feels irrelevant for an empty schema. Overall compact but not polished.

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-parameter read endpoint, the description covers the key operational context: caching, truncation, refusal behavior, and the high-level content returned. It does not describe the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and the endpoint's simplicity lowers the burden.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description's remarks about required inputs and forwarded filters are somewhat generic and not fully applicable to a zero-parameter endpoint, but they do not mislead.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Read the frontier draw prize totals and foil breakdowns' — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling endpoints like ranked_draws_prize_overview and frontier_draws_status. The scope is precise and usable 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The only adjacent statements are behavioral caveats about caching and limits, which are not selection criteria. An agent must infer the intended use case 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.