frontier_draws_recent_prizes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: the 100-row/256 KiB limits, explicit truncation notice, single GET request, no auto-pagination, and refusal of oversized records. This is rich behavioral disclosure, though the repeated limit statement and confusing filter language slightly reduce clarity.

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 repeats the 100-row and 256 KiB limit twice and includes a run-on sentence about the GET request. It also includes boilerplate-sounding phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied,' which add noise without value. The core information could be stated in half the length.

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, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the essential constraints and behavior adequately. However, it fails to clarify the relationship to the similarly named ranked_draws_recent_prizes, and the mention of nonexistent filters makes the context slightly muddled. The truncation and pagination behavior are well covered.

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 and 100% coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is high. The description adds little meaningful parameter semantics; the references to 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' are misleading because the schema declares no parameters. Overall, the empty schema already communicates the parameter surface completely.

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 begins with 'Read recent frontier draw mints,' which uses a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from the many sibling endpoints by naming 'frontier' specifically, though it does not explicitly contrast it with ranked_draws_recent_prizes or other related tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ranked_draws_recent_prizes. The statements about request behavior and truncation are operational notes, not usage-selection guidance. Mentions of 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' are vague and potentially confusing given the schema has zero parameters.

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