generate_cover_prompt_for_contest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior: returns a single prompt string that can be fed into any image model. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies any data (it appears to be a pure read/generation operation) or describe error conditions, which would be helpful for full transparency.

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 very concise, with just two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main action, and the second provides necessary context about the output and usage. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return value, and usage context. It does not elaborate on error cases or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequately complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for contest_id, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by ID' clarifies that the parameter is a single contest identifier, but it adds no additional detail about the ID's format or source. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a premium image-generation prompt for one contest by ID.' It also specifies the output ('a single prompt string') and the use case ('when the original contest banner is missing'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list contests or verify URLs.

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 provides a clear condition for use: 'when the original contest banner is missing.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently specific for an agent to select it appropriately.

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