ranked_draws_entries_completed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the 100-row / 256 KiB limit, truncation notice, lack of auto-pagination, one logical GET request, forwarding of declared filters, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. This is thorough and genuinely useful.

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, but the description is padded with repetition: the 100-row / 256 KiB limit and truncation notice are stated twice. The sentence about 'Other declared filters' is confusing because the schema has only one required id and no other declared filters. There is also a missing period in 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages.'

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 one-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description covers limits, truncation, pagination behavior, and record-size handling. However, it does not describe the shape or fields of the returned completed-entry rows, and the 'other declared filters' sentence creates uncertainty given the minimal 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by identifying the single 'id' as a numeric ranked draw id and noting that required inputs reflect tool policy and upstream requirements. This exceeds the bare integer schema, though it could have stated the semantics of 'completed-entry' more explicitly.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('completed-entry rows'), and an explicit scope ('for one explicit numeric ranked draw id'). This clearly distinguishes it from broader draw endpoints like ranked_draws_complete or ranked_draws_status without needing to open 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?

It implies when to use the tool: when you have one numeric ranked draw id and want completed entries. However, it does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools such as frontier_draws_entries_completed or ranked_draws_recent_prizes, nor does it state when not to use it.

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