ranked_draws_prize_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses caching (24h), bounded success cache, not auto-fetching continuation pages, row limits, and truncation behavior. This is transparent and useful, but lacks details on what happens on failure or whether any side effects exist. It also mentions 'static-ish' which is vague.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes important caveats in later sentences, but without excessive verbosity. Each sentence earns its place, though some technical jargon ('bounded success cache') might be simplified.

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?

Given there are no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs: caching, page fetching, row limits, and truncation reporting. It is complete for a read-only metadata tool. Minor gaps include lack of example usage or error semantics.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there is no schema to describe. The description explains that required inputs reflect tool policy and upstream requirements, and that other filters are forwarded as supplied. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, ensuring the agent knows there are no parameters to pass.

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 states the tool reads ranked draw prize totals and foil breakdowns, which is a specific resource. It is somewhat distinct from siblings like ranked_draws_available_prizes, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to know what data this returns.

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 mentions caching and pagination behavior but does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives like ranked_draws_recent_prizes or frontier_draws_prize_overview. It implies usage for reading prize overview data but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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