get_contests_for_detail_generation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context, such as the sorting priority order and that the response includes both the prompt text and contest documents. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, and it omits details about pagination behavior, though those are partially covered by the schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys what the tool returns, the priority order, and the intended subsequent action (sending to Mistral). No fluff or redundant information is present.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the content of the response, and the priority ordering, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and know what to do with the results.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (`skip` and `batch_size`) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond implying a batch of contests is returned. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema handles parameter explanation.

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: returning contests that need AI-generated detail pages, sorted by priority. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing specifically on detail generation and mentioning the prompt text inclusion. The specific verb 'Return' and resource 'contests needing AI-generated detail pages' leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to fetch contests along with the prompt text and documents for sending to Mistral for detail generation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.

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